PEOPLE OF MI V JEFFERY G MOORE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 17, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 243631
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-011290
JEFFERY G. MOORE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and O’Connell and Fort Hood, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant was charged with assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder.
MCL 750.84. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of felonious assault, MCL 750.82, and
later sentenced as an habitual offender, third offense, MCL 769.11, to thirteen months to eight
years in prison. He appeals as of right and we affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that defense counsel was ineffective for calling his
sister to present character evidence because it opened the door for the prosecutor to inquire about
his prior convictions which otherwise would have been inadmissible. Because defendant failed
to raise this claim below in a motion for a new trial or an evidentiary hearing, review is limited to
the existing record. People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 423; 608 NW2d 502 (2000).
“Decisions regarding what evidence to present and whether to call or question witnesses
are presumed to be matters of trial strategy. This Court will not substitute its judgment for that
of counsel regarding matters of trial strategy, nor will it assess counsel’s competence with the
benefit of hindsight.” People v Rockey, 237 Mich App 74, 76-77; 601 NW2d 887 (1999)
(citations omitted). “The fact that defense counsel’s strategy may not have worked does not
constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.” People v Stewart (On Remand), 219 Mich App 38,
42; 555 NW2d 715 (1996). Our review of the record fails to reveal any egregious circumstances
warranting a conclusion that counsel was ineffective. The cross-examination of defendant’s
sister did not elicit the sole inculpatory evidence against him, as was the case in People v
Dalessandro, 165 Mich App 569; 419 NW2d 609 (1988), and defense counsel’s overall
performance was not so bizarre as to prejudice the jury against her and her client, as was the case
in Ward v United States, 995 F2d 1317 (CA 6, 1993). Defendant has failed to overcome the
presumption of effective assistance. People v Watkins, 247 Mich App 14, 30; 634 NW2d 370
(2001), aff’d 468 Mich 233 (2003).
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Peter D. O’ Connell
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-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.
