IN RE ARIELLE ASHLEY GARDNER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of ARIELLE ASHLEY GARDNER,
Minor.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
January 13, 2011
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 295083
Wayne Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 09-489677-DL
ARIELLE ASHLEY GARDNER,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and CAVANAGH and BORRELLO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right the dispositional order placing her on juvenile probation
following her plea of admission to domestic violence, MCL 750.81(2), and incorrigibility, MCL
712A.2(a)(3). We affirm.
Respondent was charged with domestic violence and felonious assault, MCL 750.82, as
well as incorrigibility, following an altercation with her stepmother. Pursuant to a plea
agreement, she entered a plea of admission to the domestic violence and incorrigibility charges
in exchange for the dismissal of the felonious assault charge. The court released respondent to
her father and placed her on juvenile probation with services. Seven months later, the court
terminated respondent’s probation because she had become a temporary court ward following the
initiation of child protective proceedings. Respondent now contends that she is entitled to relief
due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
Because respondent did not raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the trial
court, our review is limited to errors apparent from the existing record.1 People v Rodriguez, 251
1
The child protective services petition appended to respondent’s appeal brief was not presented
in the trial court. Appeals are heard on the original record, MCR 7.210(A), and a party may not
-1-
Mich App 10, 38; 650 NW2d 96 (2002); People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 423; 608 NW2d
502 (2000). To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, respondent must show that
“(1) h[er] trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under
the prevailing professional norms and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
error, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Counsel is presumed to have
provided effective assistance, and [respondent] must overcome a strong presumption that
counsel’s assistance was sound trial strategy.” People v Horn, 279 Mich App 31, 37-38 n 2; 755
NW2d 212 (2008) (citations omitted).
“The ultimate decision to plead guilty is the defendant’s, and a lawyer must abide by that
decision.” People v Effinger, 212 Mich App 67, 71; 536 NW2d 809 (1995). When considering a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of a guilty plea, the court must determine
whether the defendant tendered a voluntary and understanding plea. People v Thew, 201 Mich
App 78, 89; 506 NW2d 547 (1993). “The question is not whether a court would, in retrospect,
consider counsel’s advice to be right or wrong, but whether the advice was within the range of
competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” Id. at 89-90. “Defense counsel must
explain to the defendant the range and consequences of available choices in sufficient detail to
enable the defendant to make an intelligent and informed choice” between accepting a plea and
going to trial. People v Jackson, 203 Mich App 607, 614; 513 NW2d 206 (1994). A guilty plea
may be rendered involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel where defense counsel fails
to explain the nature of the charges or discuss possible defenses thereto. Id.
Respondent argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consider whether she
had a possible defense to the assault charges based on self-defense. “A defendant is entitled to
have his counsel investigate, prepare and assert all substantial defenses.” People v Hubbard, 156
Mich App 712, 714; 402 NW2d 79 (1986). When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is
based on the failure to present a defense, the defendant must show that she made a good-faith
effort to avail herself of the right to present that defense and that the defense was substantial. In
re Ayres, 239 Mich App 8, 22; 608 NW2d 132 (1999). “A substantial defense is one that might
have made a difference in the outcome of the trial.” People v Kelly, 186 Mich App 524, 526;
465 NW2d 569 (1990).
“A finding that a defendant acted in justifiable self-defense necessarily requires a finding
that the defendant acted intentionally, but that the circumstances justified his actions.” People v
Heflin, 434 Mich 482, 503; 456 NW2d 10 (1990). When a defendant uses deadly force, the test
for determining whether she acted in lawful self-defense has three parts: (1) the defendant
honestly and reasonably believed that she was in danger; (2) the danger which she feared was
serious bodily harm or death; and (3) the action taken by the defendant appeared at the time to be
immediately necessary, i.e., the defendant is only entitled to use the amount of force necessary to
defend herself. CJI2d 7.15; Heflin, 434 Mich at 502; People v Deason, 148 Mich App 27, 31;
384 NW2d 72 (1985). To be justified in the use of nondeadly force, a defendant must have
honestly and reasonably believed that it was necessary to use the force to protect herself from
expand the record on appeal, People v Powell, 235 Mich App 557, 561 n 4; 599 NW2d 499
(1999). Therefore, we shall not consider the petition on appeal. People v Seals, 285 Mich App
1, 20-21; 776 NW2d 314 (2009).
-2-
harm. CJI2d 7.22. The amount of force used must be proportionate to the danger. People v
Kemp, 202 Mich App 318, 322; 508 NW2d 184 (1993). Where the defendant is the initial
aggressor, self-defense is not available unless the defendant first withdrew from the encounter
and communicated that withdrawal to the victim. Id. at 323. “[A]n act committed in selfdefense but with excessive force or in which defendant was the initial aggressor does not meet
the elements of lawful self-defense.” Heflin, 434 Mich at 509.
The record here indicates that respondent objected to her stepmother searching her book
bag. This led to an altercation in which respondent threatened her stepmother with a knife. The
record does not disclose whether respondent was the initial aggressor and, if so, whether she
attempted to withdraw from the fight. Further, there is nothing in the record to show that the
amount of force used by respondent was proportionate to the circumstances. The record does not
indicate whether the fight was verbal or physical, or whether respondent’s stepmother threatened
her with or used any force against her. Finally, there is nothing in the record to suggest that
respondent advised counsel of any facts that suggested that she had acted in self-defense. From
the record presented, there is no basis for concluding that defense counsel was aware of facts
indicating that respondent had a valid claim of self-defense such that counsel could be deemed
ineffective for failing to investigate it.
Respondent also argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to consider whether her
father or stepmother were being investigated by Child Protective Services (CPS) and to seek an
adjournment to determine whether the Department of Human Services would file a petition for
wardship under MCL 712A.2(b). There is nothing in the record to suggest that a CPS
investigation was in progress while this case was pending and, if so, whether counsel was aware
of it. Even assuming that a CPS investigation was in progress and that counsel was not aware of
that fact, that does not provide a basis for concluding that counsel was constitutionally
ineffective with respect to her representation of respondent in this case. Respondent does not
contend that counsel should have pursued child protective proceedings on her behalf, that the
court could not have obtained jurisdiction over her pursuant to MCL 712A.2(a) simply because it
also could have obtained jurisdiction over her pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b), or that her behavior
was somehow excused because she was in need of protection by the court. Further, it is purely a
matter of speculation that the charges that brought respondent under the court’s jurisdiction
pursuant to § 2(a) would have been dismissed had they been pending when the petition seeking
jurisdiction under § 2(b) was filed. Therefore, respondent has failed to show that trial counsel
was ineffective.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
-3-
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.