PEOPLE OF MI V NOSAKHARE N ONUMONU
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 9, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 249106
Ionia Circuit Court
LC No. 02-012288-FH
NOSAKHARE N. ONUMONU,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Sawyer and Smolenski, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury conviction for prisoner in possession of a weapon,
MCL 800.283(4). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
On appeal, defendant first claims that he was denied due process of law when the trial
court denied his request for substitute counsel. An indigent defendant is guaranteed the right to
counsel, but he is not entitled to have an appointed attorney replaced simply by making such a
request. People v Traylor, 245 Mich App 460, 462; 628 NW2d 120 (2001). Appointment of
substitute counsel is warranted only upon a showing of good cause and where substitution will
not unreasonably disrupt the judicial process. Good cause exists where a legitimate difference of
opinion develops between a defendant and his appointed counsel with respect to a fundamental
trial tactic. Id. The filing of a grievance against counsel by itself does not justify substitution of
counsel. People v Mitchell, 454 Mich 145, 170 n 30; 560 NW2d 600 (1997). A trial court’s
decision regarding substitution of counsel will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.
Traylor, supra at 462.
Defendant never explained the nature of his conflict with appointed counsel. Although
three years earlier the court had granted counsel’s motion to withdraw in a prior representation of
defendant, defendant provided no information concerning that case. A prior conflict regarding
trial strategy in another case does not in itself show that counsel could not represent defendant
under other circumstances. Therefore, there is no showing that the court abused its discretion.
Defendant also asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel where his
attorney failed to object to evidence concerning defendant’s prior prison escape. 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
-1-
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, 302-303; 521 NW2d 797 (1994).
A prosecution witness testified that he was part of an emergency response team that
recovered defendant after an escape. The testimony did not reveal that defendant was convicted
of prison escape, and defense counsel may have reasonably determined that an objection would
be more damaging than the testimony. People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 287 n 54; 531 NW2d
659 (1995). Moreover, where the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, defendant
was not prejudiced by the admission of the evidence or by the inaction of counsel, and we fail to
see any prejudice as the jury already knew of defendant’s prisoner status. See People v Reed,
449 Mich 375, 401; 535 NW2d 496 (1995).
Finally, in his supplemental brief, defendant argues that the trial court erred in scoring
offense variables 9 and 19 in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Blakely v Washington, 542 US ___; 124 S Ct 2531; 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). However, in
People v Claypool, 470 Mich 715, 730 n 14; 684 NW2d 278 (2004), the Michigan Supreme
Court noted that Blakely is inapplicable to Michigan’s sentencing system stating, “Accordingly,
the Michigan system is unaffected by the holding in Blakely that was designed to protect the
defendant from a higher sentence based on facts not found by the jury in violation of the Sixth
Amendment.” Defendant contends that this language in Claypool is mere dicta and not binding
on this Court. In People v Dorhan, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 249995,
decided October 12, 2004), slip op at 7 n 4, the defendant raised the exact same issue in his
supplemental brief regarding Blakely that defendant does in his supplemental brief in this case
and this Court rejected the assertion that the statement from Claypool pertaining to Blakely is not
binding precedent. Pursuant to MCR 7.215(C)(2), Dorhan is binding precedent and controls in
this case. Defendant does not object on appeal to the scoring of offense variables 9 and 19 on
any other basis.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.