Case ID: mich-app_189/html/0031-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Michael J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEOPLE v CAVITT
    Docket No. 124480.
    Submitted March 12, 1991, at Detroit.
    Decided May 6, 1991, at 10:00 a.m.
    Leave to appeal denied, 438 Mich 871.
    Melvin Cavitt was convicted following a bench trial in the Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Michael F. Sapala, J., of carrying a concealed weapon in a motor vehicle. The defendant appealed, alleging that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
    The Court of Appeals held:
    
    There was no error requiring reversal.
    1. Defense counsel did not err in failing to move to suppress certain evidence. The defendant was properly searched incident to his arrest for failing to produce his driver’s license.
    2. Defense counsel’s failure to object to the holding of the defendant’s preliminary examination thirteen days after his arraignment was not a mistake but for which the defendant would have had a reasonably likely chance of acquittal.
    Affirmed.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorhey General, Gay Secor Hardy, Solicitor General, John D. O’Hair, Prosecuting Attorney, Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training and Appeals, and Brian D. Marzec, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      John W. Brusstar, for the defendant on appeal.
    Before: Brennan, P.J., and Michael J. Kelly and D. F. Walsh, JJ.
    
      
       Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
    
   Michael J.

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We find no error requiring reversal. Defendant’s contention that defense counsel should have moved to suppress the evidence is unwarranted because the defendant was searched incident to his arrest for failing to produce his driver’s license. See People v Boykin, 31 Mich App 681; 188 NW2d 100 (1971). Furthermore, we decline to reverse on the basis of defense counsel’s failure to object to the holding of defendant’s preliminary examination thirteen days after his arraignment, People v Crawford, 429 Mich 151; 414 NW2d 360 (1987), finding the mistake not one but for which defendant would have had a reasonably likely chance of acquittal. Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668; 104 S Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984); People v Tommolino, 187 Mich App 14; 466 NW2d 315 (1991).

Affirmed.