If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 22, 2023 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 359532 Kent Circuit Court PAUL MICHAEL TALAMANTEZ, LC No. 19-008441-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before: CAMERON, P.J., and MURRAY and GADOLA, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right his conviction of carjacking, MCL 750.529a. The trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 10 to 30 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial or, alternatively, failing to request that the trial court question the jurors about their ability to remain impartial after the victim testified at trial that defendant called him from jail. We disagree and affirm. Defendant was convicted of carjacking a van owned by Elmer Rodas De Leon, an undocumented immigrant who ran a painting business. Early in the morning, Rodas De Leon stepped out of his house to head to work. Defendant came up behind him, pressed a weapon into his back, and demanded the key to his van. Rodas De Leon handed defendant the key and watched him drive away. Defendant drove to the home of an acquaintance of Rodas De Leon to sell a paint sprayer from the van. Recognizing the van and paint sprayer, the acquaintance contacted Rodas De Leon. Rodas De Leon then called the police. Defendant was apprehended at a nearby store. During cross-examination of Rodas De Leon at defendant’s trial, defense counsel elicited the following: Q. You believe you’re going to get some type of immigration advantage from your testimony today? -1- A. No. That’s not—so to tell you the truth, sir, no. I did not want to come here. The only reason that I’m coming here is to testify, to say what happens. During redirect-examination, the prosecution asked Rodas De Leon about this testimony: Q. Okay. You made a comment to [defense counsel] about how you don’t want to be here. A. Yes, I didn’t want to be here for the same reason that—so by being here, I’m reliving that day, and this is more because this man there, he was calling me from jail. Q. Let’s stop there. I want to— [Defense Counsel]: Move to strike. Could be [sic] approach? The trial court granted defendant’s motion to strike the testimony and instructed the jury not to consider the testimony in its deliberations. Defendant argues that defense counsel was ineffective because he did not request a mistrial in response to this exchange or request that the jurors be polled to ensure their continued impartiality in light of the testimony. We disagree that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance and therefore affirm defendant’s conviction. A defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim “is a mixed question of fact and constitutional law.” People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575, 579; 640 NW2d 246 (2002). This Court reviews the trial court’s findings of fact …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals