PEOPLE OF MI V STEVEN SHAYA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 18, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 245877
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 01-245877
STEVEN SHAYA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Jansen and Talbot, JJ.
TALBOT, J., Dissenting.
This Court’s peremptory reversal in this case was vacated by order of our Supreme Court
on the apparent basis that the trial court withheld a supplemental ruling from the parties and this
Court. For some inexplicable reason, the Supreme Court concluded that it would best serve
“administrative efficiency” to have this Court evaluate the lower court’s previously secret ruling.
I would again reverse because neither the trial court nor defendant have provided any worthwhile
reason for continued proceedings in this case and an evidentiary hearing would be a further
waste of judicial resources.
The letter at issue here included discussion of a “Certificate of Acceptance.” The
prosecutor argued at trial that the only copy of the purported certificate was “a faxed copy,” and
that there was no original certificate or supporting documentation in the City’s files. The
prosecutor told the jury that there was no proof that defendant forged the certificate but that it
was the People’s theory that the certificate was “bogus” because of the anomaly in the official
records. The prosecutor alternatively argued to the jury that any question regarding the
certificate was irrelevant to this case because “the bottom line” was that defendant claimed to
have completed a job, and there was evidence that he had not. As the prosecutor later noted at
the hearing on defendant’s motion for new trial, “any contractor in his right mind, so to speak,
would know that the job was not done.” Indeed, the majority acknowledges that the letter, which
was written to defendant by the building inspector, was also irrelevant to defendant’s theory at
trial that he was not responsible for the fraud.
The trial court’s ex parte inference that the prosecutor withheld the letter, which was
addressed to defendant himself, is entirely unsupported by the record. Defense counsel was
present when the prosecutor informed the court that both counsel had copies of the letter in their
possession. Further, the basis for defendant’s motion for new trial because of ineffective
assistance was that his attorney had the letter and did not use it to his advantage. While
-1-
defendant argues that the letter was evidence that he did not obtain a Certificate of Acceptance
by false pretenses, the letter also contains language suggesting that defendant was not in
compliance and was in danger of having his license suspended. Counsel’s decision not to
introduce the letter at trial was clearly a matter of trial strategy that should not be second-guessed
by this Court. People v Avant, 235 Mich App 499, 508; 597 NW2d 864 (1999). The fact that
counsel’s strategy may not have worked does not constitute ineffective assistance. People v
Stewart (On Remand), 219 Mich App 38, 42; 555 NW2d 715 (1996). Remand for additional
proceedings on either the question of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial
misconduct would be a further waste of time, and I would reverse.
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
-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.
