PEOPLE OF MI V ALEX SAMUEL MCDOWELL

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED December 27, 1996 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 184019 LC No. 94-000464 ALEX SAMUEL MCDOWELL, Defendant-Appellant. Before: Young, P.J., and O’Connell and Nykamp,* JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right after being convicted by a jury for breaking and entering a building, MCL 750.110; MSA 28.305. Defendant was then charged and sentenced as a habitual offender-fourth, MCL 769.12; MSA 28.1084, to four to twenty years of imprisonment. We affirm. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. To prevail, defendant must establish that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and the representation so prejudiced the defendant as to deprive him of a fair trial. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 338; 521 NW2d 797 (1994). Defendant claims he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to discover impeachment evidence against the prosecution’s key witness. We disagree. At the Ginther1 hearing, defendant introduced evidence that the witness had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge and had not been sentenced at the time of defendant’s trial. Defendant argued that his trial counsel could have used this information to show that the witness had a motive to testify against defendant in order to curry favor with the authorities before being sentenced. The trial court found that the evidence against this witness concerned a guilty plea in another county, and then reasoned that it was doubtful whether defendant’s trial counsel could have effectively impeached the witness as his testimony would not have been an attempt to curry favor with the Oscoda County authorities. We agree with the trial court that defendant failed to show actual prejudice resulted from his trial counsel’s failure to discover impeachment evidence. Accordingly, we hold that the lower court did not abuse its discretion * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ when denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. Pickens, supra; see also People v Davis, 199 Mich App 502, 515; 503 NW2d 457 (1993). Affirmed. /s/ Robert P. Young, Jr. /s/ Peter D. O’Connell /s/ Wesley J. Nykamp 1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 212 NW2d 922 (1973). -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.