Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v ANTHONY CLIFFORD GATES, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED February 26, 2009

No. 283640 Calhoun Circuit Court LC No. 2007-002155-FH

Before: Donofrio, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and Beckering, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from his jury trial convictions of first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2), felonious assault, MCL 750.82, and aggravated stalking, MCL 750.411i. Because the introduction of additional evidence on a collateral point is a strategic decision that will not alone support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant has not established error, and we affirm. Defendant was charged with the above offenses, as well as with interfering with electronic communications, MCL 750.540(5)(a), as a result of an incident at the home of complainant, his former girlfriend, during the early morning hours of April 2, 2007. Complainant testified that defendant entered her home without permission and in violation of a personal protection order (PPO), and threatened her with a knife for a period exceeding one hour. Complainant acknowledged that defendant had been at her home on April 1, 2007, on a prearranged errand to collect some personal belongings,1 and that she and defendant had agreed that he could return on a later date to collect more items. Complainant indicated that defendant agreed that he would telephone to arrange the future visit. Complainant denied that she telephoned defendant early on April 2, 2007, and invited him to her home. Complainant testified that following the incident at her home, she received two letters from defendant. Defendant testified that he went to complainant's home during the early morning hours of April 2, 2007, but contended that complainant had telephoned him and invited him to come to

1

The prosecutor did not contend that visit violated the terms of the PPO.

-1-

the residence. Defendant acknowledged that he and complainant argued while he was at the residence, but denied that he possessed a knife or that he threatened complainant at any time during the incident. Defendant denied that he possessed a knife,2 that he threatened complainant at any time during the incident, or that he broke a glass door pane to gain entrance to the home. Defendant further testified that a glass door pane broke when he opened the door to the sunroom.3 Defendant admitted that he wrote the letters complainant received in April 2007, but asserted that he did not realize that the PPO prohibited him from contacting complainant by letter. The jury acquitted defendant of interfering with electronic communications, but convicted him of first-degree home invasion, felonious assault, and aggravated stalking. Defendant now appeals as of right. Defendant claims that his counsel was ineffective because he did not subpoena certain telephone records. Defendant did not move for a new trial in the trial court or seek an evidentiary hearing on the issue of ineffective assistance; therefore, our review is limited to mistakes apparent on the record. People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 423; 608 NW2d 502 (2000). To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. Counsel must have made errors so serious that he was not performing as the "counsel" guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. US Const, Am VI; Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V ANTHONY CLIFFORD GATES.pdf

Michigan Law