PEOPLE OF MI V EDWARD ALTON RUGGLES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
September 14, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 247144
Jackson Circuit Court
LC No. 02-005990-FH
EDWARD ALTON RUGGLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Donofrio, P.J., and White and Talbot, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury conviction of second-degree criminal sexual
conduct, MCL 750.520c. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
On appeal, defendant first argues that the court erred in instructing the jury on the
cognate offense of second-degree criminal sexual conduct when he was charged with first-degree
criminal sexual conduct. However, defendant requested that the jury receive the instruction. He
cannot now argue on appeal that the trial court erred in granting his request. People v
Piotrowski, 211 Mich App 527, 530; 536 NW2d 293 (1995).
Defendant also asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when his
trial attorney failed to object to evidence of prior consistent statements. To establish ineffective
assistance of counsel, defendant must show that counsel’s performance was below an objective
standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms and 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).
Defense counsel made effective use of the inconsistencies between the earlier statements
and the testimony of the two children, and obtained an acquittal of the first-degree criminal
sexual conduct charge. Where defendant admitted that complainant touched his penis and that
he took photographs of complainant and her brother while they were naked, it is highly unlikely
that the outcome of the trial would have been different had the evidence of prior statements been
excluded.
Finally, defendant argues that he was improperly sentenced because the court did not
mention the habitual offender enhancement at sentencing. The information contained notice of
-1-
the habitual offender supplement. The presentence report indicates that defendant was
supplemented as a fourth habitual offender, and the guidelines were computed on that basis. The
judgment of sentence states that defendant was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender. Where
there were no statements on the record indicating that the court did not intend to sentence
defendant as a habitual offender, there is no basis for contesting the written order of the court.
Affirmed.
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Helene N. White
/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.