IN RE TORRIA ALLEN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In re TORRIA ALLEN, Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 27, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 220553
Wayne Circuit Court
Juvenile Division
LC No. 95-323163
TORRIA ALLEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Sawyer and F. L. Borchard*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right the order committing her to the jurisdiction of the Family
Independence Agency. We affirm.
Defendant was charged with criminal activity in seven petitions filed with the court. At a
pretrial hearing, defendant accepted the prosecutor’s offer to drop six of the charges if she
pleaded guilty to one petition charging her with second-degree retail fraud. Defendant was
advised of her rights, and stated that no promises or threats were made to induce the plea. The
court accepted the plea, and at the dispositional hearing, committed defendant to the custody of
the Family Independence Agency.
On appeal, defendant argues that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel where
counsel failed to take the matter to trial and present a duress defense. We disagree.
To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, defendant first must show that
counsel’s performance was below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing
professional norms. The defendant must overcome a strong presumption that counsel’s
assistance constituted sound trial strategy. 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. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298; 521 NW2d 797 (1994).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
Defendant failed to present any evidence in support of a duress defense. In order to
properly raise a duress defense, the defendant has the burden of producing some evidence from
which a jury can conclude that the essential elements of duress are present. People v Lemons,
454 Mich 234, 246; 562 NW2d 447 (1997). A defendant must introduce evidence from which a
jury could conclude that there was threatening conduct sufficient to create in the mind of a
reasonable person the fear of death or serious bodily harm, the conduct in fact caused that fear,
the fear was operating upon the mind of the defendant at the time of the act, and defendant
committed the act to avoid the threatened harm. Id., 247.
There is no evidence that any person engaged in threatening conduct toward defendant.
Defendant has failed to present the necessary evidence to show that she was deprived of the
effective assistance of counsel.
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.
