PEOPLE OF MI V CORTEZE LAMOND SMITH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 17, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 231219
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 99-166777-FH
CORTEZE LAMOND SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Smolenski, P.J., and Neff and White, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted, following a bench trial, of possession with intent to deliver less
than fifty grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv), and sentenced to lifetime probation. He
appeals as of right. We affirm.
Defendant first argues that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
testimony that he was found in the company of known felons, and to testimony that a
companion’s car field-tested positive for cocaine. We disagree. Because defendant did not raise
this issue in a motion for a new trial or a Ginther1 hearing, our review is limited to mistakes
apparent from the record. People v Hurst, 205 Mich App 634, 641; 517 NW2d 858 (1994).
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must show that his trial
counsel’s performance was deficient and that, under an objective standard of reasonableness,
counsel made an error so serious that he was not performing as the attorney guaranteed by the
constitution. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 302-303; 521 NW2d 797 (1994); People v
Tommolino, 187 Mich App 14, 17; 466 NW2d 315 (1991). Defendant must overcome the
presumption that the challenged conduct might be considered sound trial strategy and must
further show that he was prejudiced by the error in question. Pickens, supra at 312, 314;
Tommolino, supra at 17. That is, defendant must show that the error would have made a
difference in the outcome of the trial. People v LaVearn, 448 Mich 207, 216; 528 NW2d 721
(1995).
First, contrary to what defendant asserts, there was no testimony that his companion’s car
was field-tested for cocaine. Rather, our reading of the record indicates that the comment
1
People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 442-444; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).
-1-
concerning a positive field test was made in reference to the material inside the bag that was
found in the back of the squad car. Because the composition of that substance was at issue,
defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object. Any objection would have been futile,
and defense counsel is not required to raise futile or meritless objections. People v Kulpinski,
243 Mich App 8, 27; 620 NW2d 537 (2000).
We do agree with defendant’s argument that the testimony that he was found in the
company of known felons was not relevant to any element of the crime and had a tendency to be
prejudicial because it suggested that defendant was a drug offender because his companions were
drug offenders. Generally, such evidence would be subject to exclusion under MRE 403 due to
its prejudicial effect. See People v Spearman, 195 Mich App 434, 446; 491 NW2d 606 (1992),
rev in part on other grounds sub nom in People v Rush, 443 Mich 870; 504 NW2d 185 (1993).
However, defendant here was tried in a bench trial. “Unlike a jury, a judge is presumed to
possess an understanding of the law, which allows him to understand the difference between
admissible and inadmissible evidence or statements of counsel.” People v Wofford, 196 Mich
App 275, 282; 492 NW2d 747 (1992). In this case, there is no indication that the known prior
records of defendant’s companions played any role in the trial court’s decision. Rather, the court
noted that the squad car had been searched before defendant was detained, that the doors and
windows were closed, that no one else had approached the car, that the drugs inside the bag were
easily visible, and that there was no animosity between defendant and the officers. The court
reasonably inferred that defendant was the person who placed the drugs in the back of the squad
car. There is no indication that the background or character of defendant’s companions
influenced the trial court’s decision. Therefore, defendant has failed to show that, but for
counsel’s error in failing to object to this testimony, the result at trial would have been different.
LaVearn, supra at 216; Pickens, supra at 312, 314. Accordingly, reversal is not required.
Next, defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he possessed the
drugs in question. Again, we disagree.
As mentioned previously, the testimony showed that the squad car was searched at the
beginning of the officers’ shift, and again after the only other arrest that day, before defendant
was detained. Further, the officer did not see anything in the back seat before defendant entered
the vehicle. Defendant was patted down for weapons before being placed in the squad car, but
was not searched for contraband. While one officer wrote defendant a ticket, the other officer
stood by to make sure no one approached the patrol car. Defendant was not handcuffed. After
defendant exited the car, an officer found a plastic baggie containing twenty-four individual
packets of crack cocaine near where defendant’s feet had been. No one else had been near the
patrol car; the doors had been closed, and the windows rolled up.
Viewed most favorably to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient to enable a
rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the person who placed
the drugs in the squad car. People v Petrella, 424 Mich 221, 268-270; 380 NW2d 11 (1985).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Helene N. White
-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.
