PEOPLE OF MI V JAMAL WILLIAMS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 6, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 220557
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-008683
JAMAL T. WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Sawyer and F.L. Borchard*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial conviction for armed robbery, MCL 750.529;
MSA 28.797. We affirm.
Defendant argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel where trial
counsel failed to move to suppress the identification evidence. To establish an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim, defendant first must show that counsel’s performance fell below an
objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. People v Toma, 462
Mich 281, 302; 613 NW2d 694 (2000). The defendant must overcome a strong presumption that
counsel’s assistance constituted sound trial strategy. Id. Second, the defendant must show that
there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding would
have been different. Id. at 302-303; see also People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298; 521 NW2d 797
(1994).
There is no prejudice where defendant has failed to show that the identification evidence
would have been suppressed had counsel filed the appropriate motion. A prompt on-scene
identification by police without the presence of counsel is reasonable and does not violate a
defendant’s right to counsel. People v Winters, 225 Mich App 718, 727-728; 571 NW2d 764
(1997).
The identification procedure did not taint the subsequent line-up and in-court
identifications. An identification must be reviewed under the totality of the circumstances.
People v McElhaney, 215 Mich App 269, 287; 545 NW2d 18 (1996). Complainant observed
defendant directly at close range, and gave an accurate description of him. She sought him out
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
and identified him prior to any police involvement. When she returned to the area, she ruled out
another subject. She identified defendant in a line-up, at the preliminary examination, and at
trial. The identification was proper and counsel was not ineffective in failing to move to
suppress the evidence.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Fred L. Borchard
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
