PEOPLE OF MI V LEONORA WINSTON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 19, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 237021
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-011413-01
LEONORA WINSTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Gage and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right her jury conviction for felonious assault, MCL 750.82. We
affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
On appeal, defendant asserts that she was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel
who failed to challenge two jurors who had been crime victims in the past. 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 actions 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).
A lawyer’s hunches, based on his observations, may be as valid as any method of
choosing a jury, and decisions regarding which jurors to accept are the province of the attorney
after consultation with his client. People v Robinson, 154 Mich App 92, 95; 397 NW2d 229
(1986). The strategic decision not to challenge a juror cannot be held to be ineffective assistance
of counsel. Id.
Here, there was no showing that the two jurors were biased due to their prior involvement
in crimes. The crimes were not similar to the assault at issue. Both jurors reported that they
would not be affected by their prior experience. There is no showing that counsel was
ineffective in failing to challenge these jurors.
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.