PEOPLE OF MI V GARY COKLOW
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 23, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 232666
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-003676-01
GARY COKLOW,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Talbot, P.J., and Cooper and D.P. Ryan*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial convictions for assault with intent to commit
great bodily harm less than murder, MCL 750.84, carjacking, MCL 750.529a, armed robbery,
MCL 750.529, and felony-firearm, MCL 750.227b. We affirm. This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
On appeal, defendant asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to
counsel’s failure to move to suppress identification testimony based on a tainted lineup. 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).
Defendant claims that the lineup was tainted because the other participants were taller
than he was. Physical differences between defendant and the other lineup participants goes to
the weight of the identification, and not its admissibility. People v Sawyer, 222 Mich App 1, 3;
564 NW2d 62 (1997). Here, the lineup participants sat on a bench. Trial counsel argued that the
lineup was meaningless, addressing the weight of the evidence. Where the trial court found that
the lineup was fair, and there was an
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
independent basis for the identification, there is no showing that the court would have granted a
motion to suppress had it been filed. People v Gray, 457 Mich 107; 577 NW2d 92 (1998).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Daniel P. Ryan
-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.
