If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

March 3, 2022

v No. 356411

Saginaw Circuit Court

ADRIAN LOUIS VILLANUEVA, LC No. 19-046326-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CAVANAGH, P.J., and JANSEN and RIORDAN, JJ.

CAVANAGH, P.J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. Contrary to the majority opinion, I would affirm the trial court order 

denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Defendant’s trial counsel petitioned the trial court to order forensic examinations to 

determine both defendant’s competency to stand trial and his criminal responsibility. The petition 

was granted and both evaluations were performed. A licensed psychologist and forensic examiner 

at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry performed these evaluations and submitted reports in which 

she opined that defendant was competent to stand trial and that, although “mentally ill as defined 

by statute for the time in question,” he did “not meet statutory criteria for a defense of legal 

insanity” because he “demonstrated the capacity to appreciate the nature of his actions, the 

wrongfulness of his behaviors, and to conform his behaviors to the requirements of the law.” As 

the trial court noted, the examiner’s conclusions were extensively supported, including by

defendant’s mental health history, reports reviewed, observations, and testing completed.

Defendant failed to provide any evidence to rebut or undermine the professional opinions 

expressed in the competency and criminal responsibility evaluations. As the trial court noted: 

“Nothing in either forensic center report suggests that Defendant was legally insane at the time of 

the offenses in this case.” And, the trial court further noted: “Nothing has been presented by 

Defendant to support the present claim that an independent exam was warranted. Nothing 

indicates that the plea process would be different if an independent exam was conducted as now 

argued by the defense.”
-2-

On appeal, defendant, who was 33 years old when he was evaluated, refers to portions of 

the record that demonstrate he has a history of mental illness, but mental illness does not

necessarily constitute a defense of legal insanity. See MCL 768.21a(1). And defendant’s mental 

health history was specifically considered by the forensic examiner. Defendant must show that he 

had a meritorious defense, but he has failed to provide any evidence from a medical professional 

opining that the forensic evaluation report was wrong and that defendant was legally insane at the 

time of the offenses. Apart from pointing to his mental health history, defendant presented no 

evidence that he was incompetent at the time of the offenses. See People v Hunt, 170 Mich App 

1, 14; 427 NW2d 907 (1988). Moreover, although “[t]he defendant may, at his or her own expense, 

secure an independent psychiatric evaluation by a clinician of his or her choice on the issue of his 

or her insanity at the time the alleged offense was committed,” MCL 768.20a(3), this language is 

permissive rather than mandatory. Therefore, there was no requirement for trial counsel to seek 

such an independent evaluation. In light of the forensic examiner’s evaluations and reports, and 

in the absence of any evidence by defendant, I conclude that defendant failed to carry his heavy 

burden to show that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek an independent criminal 

responsibility evaluation or pursue an insanity defense. See People v Seals, 285 Mich App 1, 17; 

776 NW2d 314 (2009) (citation omitted). Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s decision 

on this issue.

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh