Court of Appeals: CSC defendant not deprived of due process

By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service

A man convicted of criminal sexual conduct was not deprived of his due process rights and the court rightfully did not sever the multiple counts against him, the Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday in a unanimous decision.

In a published opinion released Thursday written by Judge Michael Riordan, joined by Judge Mark Boonstra and Judge Christopher Yates, the panel in People v. Wisniewski (COA Docket No. 361987) affirmed the defendant’s convictions.

The case involved a defendant who was sentenced to current terms of imprisonment of up to 30 years, as well as a consecutive sentence for one of the CSC-1 counts.

The defendant argued that he was deprived of his due process rights or a fair trial because the CSC-1 and CSC-2 counts should have been severed pursuant to court rules. He also argued the trial court’s performance was deficient for not moving for severance.

Riordan said the panel disagreed.

“First, the defendant was not deprived of his rights to due process or a fair trial as severance of the multiple counts of CSC-I and CSC-II was not required under MCR 6.120. Additionally, trial counsel’s performance was not ineffective for failing to move to sever the multiple counts,” Riordan wrote. “Second, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence text messages that defendant sent to his former girlfriend, as well as Internet searches and the browser history found on defendant’s electronic devices, all of which contained indications of sexual misconduct.”

Riordan also wrote that the defendant had not demonstrated a plain error regarding his claim that the trial court erred by allowing a family friend to testify about other acts of sexual misconduct perpetrated by the defendant, nor did he support his claim that he had ineffective counsel due to his attorney’s refusal to object to the prosecution’s comments during closing arguments.

“The defendant has not established plain error affecting his substantial rights with respect to his unpreserved claim that the prosecution committed error by repeatedly referring to the complainants as ‘the victims,’” Riordan wrote. “The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant’s motion for an in camera review of (a victim’s) counseling records as the defendant did not establish a reasonable probability that the privileged records were likely to contain material information necessary to his defense.”

Riordan said the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed consecutive sentences of the two separate counts of CSC-1 because the trial court gave “particularized reasons for its sentencing decision, including its consideration of the defendant as the offender, as well as the offenses he committed.”

“The trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences was reasonable because the sentences satisfy the principle of proportionality,” Riordan wrote.

––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available