-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 14, 2016

v No. 323312 Wayne Circuit Court LORENZO JOHNSON, LC No. 14-003623-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: S AAD , P.J., and W ILDER and M URRAY , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Defendant appeals his jury trial conviction of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, second o ffense (felony-firearm), MCL 75 0.227b(1). The jury acquitted defendant of the accompanying two counts of felon in possessionof a firearm (felon-inpossession), MCL 750.224f. Defenda nt was sentenced to the mand atory five-year term of imprisonment for the felony-fire arm conviction. For the reason s provided below, we affirm.

The police were looking for defendant’s son, Lorenzo Grayse, w ho was wanted on multiple arrest warrants. After running Grayse’s name through LEIN and the Secretary of State database, the police determined that Grayse lived at 14747 Libe ral in Detroit, which unbeknownst to them was where defendant resided. While executi ng the arrest warrants at the house in search of Grayse, one of the officers looked into one of the unfurnished bedrooms and saw two firearms lying on the fl oor in plain view. Afterward, the police discovered Grayse hiding in the basement. When police questioned defendant about the firearms, he stated that his brother owned them, but after his brother recently died, they w ere now his. Before trial, defendant moved to suppress the ev idence of the firearms on the basis that the search was in violation of the Fourth Amendment because, even though Grayse w as found at the house at the time of the raid, Grays e did not live there.

I. MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Defendant challenges the trial court’s decision to deny his mo tion to suppress the evidence of the two firearms that were seized from his home dur ing a police raid. This Court reviews a trial court’s factual findings made at a hearing on amotion to suppress for clear error. People v Hill , 299 Mich App 402, 405; 829 NW2d 908 (2013). A finding of fac t is clearly erroneous where, after reviewing the record as a whole, this Co urt is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake. People v Bolduc , 263 Mich App 430, 436; 688-2- NW2d 316 (2004). Where the matter requires the relevant facts to be considered against the backdrop of constitutional law, this Court reviews these matter s de novo. Hill , 299 Mich App at 405.

Both the state and federal constitutions protect against unrea sonable searches and seizures. People v Lemons , 299 Mich App 541, 545; 830 NW2d 794 (2013). “The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution is generally unders tood to provide the same protections as article 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution.” Id. , citing People v Slaughter , 489 Mich 302, 311; 803 NW2d 171 (2011). The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all searches, only those that are unreasonable. Slaughter , 489 Mich at 311. When evaluating the constitutionality of a search, this Court must focus on the rea sonableness of the search, as that is the guiding inquiry pursuant to the Fourth Amendment. Lemons , 299 Mich App at 545. This inquiry is very fact-specific and is dependent on the circumsta nces of each case. Id

. Here, the firearms at issue we re seized under the plain view d octrine. 1 “The plain view doctrine allows police officers to seize, without a warrant, it ems in plain view if the officers are lawfully in a position from which they view the item, and if th e item’s incriminating character is immediately apparent.” People v Champion , 452 Mich 92, 102; 549 NW2d 849 (1996).

A fundamental characteristic of the doctrine is that it is excl usively a seizure rationale. No searching, no matter how minimal, may be done un der the auspices of the plain view doctrine. Anot her fundamental characteristic of the doctrine is that, unlike most exceptions to the warrant requirement, it is not predicated on exigent circumstances. Instead, it is permitted in the interes t of police convenience. It would be unreasonably inconvenient to require the police, once they have made a valid intrusion and have discovered probable e vidence in plain view, to leave, obtain a warrant, and return to resume a proces s already in progress. [ Id. (citations omitted).]

There was no dispute at the evidentiary hearing that the locate d firearms were plainly visible from the officer’s perspective wh en he looked into the bedroom, as they were lying on the floor in the open. Thus, to resolve this issue, we must decide wheth er the officer’s presence, while looking into the bedroom was lawful.

“It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton v New York , 445 US 573, 586; 100 S Ct 1371; 63 L Ed 2d 639 (1980) (quotation marks omitted). However, in the instant case, the police gained entry into defendant’s home at 14747 Liberal under the authority of a felony arrest warrant for Grayse. “[F]or Fourth Amendment purposes, a n arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is wi thin.” Id. at 603; see also Steagald v United States , 451 US 204, 214 n 7; 101 S Ct 1642; 68 L Ed 2d 38 (1981).

1 While a warrant was involved in the raid on defendant’s home, it was an arrest warrant, not a search warrant.-3- Defendant, while relying on Steagald , claims that because Grayse did not live at 14747 Liberal, the arrest warrant necessarily was insufficient to all ow the officers to gain entry to the home. The narrow issue the Steagald Court was asked to consider was whether the arrest warrant sufficiently protected the Fourth Amendment rights of p ersons not named in the arrest warrant, whose homes are searche d without the authority of a se arch warrant, and where no exigent circumstances existed. Steagald , 451 US at 212.

In Steagald , the DEA agents in that case relied on an arrest warrant for R icky Lyons to enter the home of another person looking for Lyons, grounded in the belief that Lyons “might be a guest” in the home. Id . at 213. Lyons was not found in the home, but the agents did find cocaine, which was later used as a basis to charge the resident of the home. Id. at 206-207. The Court held that the arrest warrant for Lyons did nothing to protect t he third party’s right to be free from unreasonable searches of his home, and therefore, the search was tantamount to a warrantless search that violated the Fourth Amendment. Id . at 213, 216.

The Steagald Court recognized that an arrest warrant “primarily serves to p rotect an individual from an unreasonable seizure” because it is grounded on a showing of probable cause. Id. at 213. In contrast, the probable cause showing for a search warrant “safeguards an individual’s interest in the p rivacy of his home and possession s against the unjustified intrusion of the police.” Id. The Court further explained,

Because an arrest warrant authorizes the police to deprive a pe rson of his liberty, it necessarily authorizes a limite d invasion of that person’s p rivacy interest when it is necessary to arrest him in his home. This analysis, howe ver, is plainly inapplicable when the police seek to use an arrest warrant as l egal authority to enter the home of a third party to conduct a search. Such a wa rrant embodies no judicial determination whatsoever regarding the person whose ho me is to be searched. [ Id . at 214 n 7.]

Consequently, the salient holding from Steagald is that the police may not rely on an arrest warrant that specifies a certainindividual in order to search the home of a third party who is not named in the arrest warrant. Id. at 213-214, 216.

It is clear, however, that the facts in the instant matter are distinguishable from Steagald

. Here, the officers, unlike the officers in Steagald who thought the subject of their arrest warrant (Lyons) may be present because he “might be a guest” at the hom e, were acting on the justified belief that the subject of their arrest warrant (Grayse) actual ly lived at the home they entered. Sergeant Campau conducted a diligent search of LEIN and the Sec retary of State database the day before the raid, which rev ealed 14747 Liberal as Grayse’s l ast address of record. 2 Defendant relies on the fact that, while Grayse had initially been parole d to the 14747 address, Grayse later informed his parole officer that he had moved to another addres s. Defendant contends that the police should have learned of this new address by inquiring wit h the Department of Corrections.

2 In fact, the Secretary of State database showed that the 14747 address was Grayse’s current address, as his license was valid through 2017.-4- But defendant has not identified any case law that requires the police to make further investigation into the address of the subject of an arrest warr ant, such as following up with the subject’s parole officer, when they already have multiple sourc es that identify a particular address. Given that all the information the police had pointed to 14747 Liberal as being Grayse’s address, the court did not clearly err in finding thatthe police reasonably believed that Grayse lived there. As such, there were no grounds to deem the arrest warrant and its subsequent execution illegal. See Florida v Royer , 460 US 491, 514; 103 S Ct 1319; 75 L Ed 2d 229 (1983) (providing that the lynchpin in a ll Fourth Amendment analysis i s “reasonableness”).

Furthermore, defendant’s ultimate desire was to suppress the f irearms as the fruit of an illegal search. The “exclusionary rule” bars the use of disput ed evidence at trial when there has been a violation of a defendant ’s Fourth Amendment rights. People v Short , 289 Mich App 538, 544; 797 NW2d 665 (2010). However, because the purpose of the rule is to deter police misconduct , it serves no purpose when the police act in good faith. Id. , citing United States v Leon , 468 US 897, 918; 104 S Ct 3405; 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984). In ap plying the exclusionary rule, the court must weigh the benefits of the resulting deterr ence of police misconduct against the costs incurred by preventing the introduction of otherwise valid evidence. Short , 289 Mich App at 544. Here, because the o fficers acted reasonably in the ir investigation into Grayse’s address, there would be little point in excluding the evidence in the instant case just because their information regarding Grayse’s residence ultimately was (purpor tedly) inaccurate. 3

In sum, because the information in the arrest warrant was cons istent with the officers’ reasonable belief that Grayse lived at the 14747 Liberal addres s, as verified by the information contained in LEIN and the Secret ary of State records, this take s the case outside the ambit of Steagald , and the officers’ entry into that home in search of Grayse wa s legal. The fact that Grayse may have resided elsewhere at the time is not determinat ive. Therefore, because the officers had a legal right to be in the house and see the firea rms at issue, they were properly discovered under the plain view doctrine. As a result, the tri al court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress.

II. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

Defendant raises several alle gations of prosecutorial miscondu ct. To preserve a claim of misconduct on the part of the prosecutor, a defendant is requir ed to advance a contemporaneous objection and seek a curative in struction from the lower court. People v Bennett , 290 Mich App 465, 475; 802 NW2d 627 (2010). Defendant did not raise objecti ons to the challenged conduct in the trial court. Accordingly, these issues are not properlypreserved, and we review them for plain error affecting defenda nt’s substantial rights. People v Thomas , 260 Mich App 450, 453- 454; 678 NW2d 631 (2004). Thus, in this context, reversal is o nly required when a curative instruction would not have not a lleviated any prejudicial effec t. People v Ackerman , 257 Mich App 434, 449; 669 NW2d 818 (2003).

3 We offer no view on whether the information was indeed accurat e or not, and as previously discussed, the trial court did not make an explicit finding on this point either.-5- To assert a successful claim o f prosecutorial misconduct, defe ndant must make a showing that he was denied a fair and impartial trial. People v Rodriguez , 251 Mich App 10, 29; 650 NW2d 96 (2002). Prosecutors are given significant latitude wit h their arguments and conduct at trial. People v Cooper , 309 Mich App 74, 90; 867 NW2d 452 (2015). This Court reviews a prosecutor’s comments in context, viewed against defense counse l’s arguments, and considers the relationship of the comments to the evidence admitted at tr ial. People v Seals , 285 Mich App 1, 22; 776 NW2d 314 (2009). When stating inferences and conclu sions arising from the evidence, a prosecutor is not required to use the blandest term s. People v Launsburry , 217 Mich App 358, 361; 551 NW2d 460 (1996).

Defendant first contends that the prosecutor improperly vouche d for the credibility of a police officer witness. A prosecutor is not permitted to vouch for a witness’s credibility to the extent that it appears he has spe cial knowledge regarding wheth er that witness is truthful. Cooper , 309 Mich App at 90. Viewing the pros ecutor’s closing argumen t in context, it is evident that rather than stating that the police officer was worthy of belief and vouching for his credibility, the prosecutor was pointing out to the jury that t his case indeed presented a credibility contest between the officer and defendant, and the prosecutor merely invited the jury to use its own common sense and life skills in determining who to believe. We find that this was consistent with the court’s own instructions it provided to the jury and perceive no error. Moreover, the trial court instructed the jurors that the argume nts of counsel were not evidence, and that it was up to the jurors to decide what evidence to bel ieve and how to evaluate a witness’s credibility. The trial court also instructed the jur y that testimony from a police officer “is to be judged by the same stand ards [the jury] would use to evaluate the testimony of any other witness.” “Jurors are presumed to follow their instructi ons.” People v Unger , 278 Mich App 210, 237; 749 NW2d 272 (2008). Regardless, to the extent t hat any error was introduced, a curative instruction would have a lleviated any prejudice, there by precluding reversal on this ground. Ackerman , 257 Mich App at 449.

Defendant next contends that pr osecutor impermissibly tried to arouse the jury’s passions when he stated that one of the guns recovered did not appear to have a sporting purpose and was “designed for quick access and use on people.” While we agree that the comment was not particularly relevant, we do not believe that it worked to deny defendant a fair trial. Further, had defense counsel timely objected, a curative instruction would h ave alleviated any prejudice to defendant. Id. Under these circumstances, defendant has not demonstrated tha t this comment amounted to plain error affecti ng his substantial rights.

Defendant also complains that the prosecutor misstated the evi dence during his closing argument, when he said:

All the testimony regarding the broken padlock and the broken door you only heard from one person, Mr. Johnson. Let me ask you this. Does he have any particular motive or reason to lie?

He admitted there are no photographs of that broken padlock or broken door frame in existence of any ki nd. They just don’t exist.-6- Defendant’s assertion on appeal that the prosecutor’s statement was a misstatement of the evidence is belied by the record. During defendant’s cross-exa mination, the following exchange took place:

Q . So you don’t have any pictures of the broken door and the br oken padlock?

A . No.

* * *

Q . There’s not a single picture of that broken padlock, is ther e?

A . No, sir.

Defendant relies on his subsequent comment during recross-exami nation, where he admits that he has other photos (although not admitted into evidence) on hi s Facebook page that, while they did not show the door being broken, showed “the padlock.” Notably, defendant did not specify that the padlock was “broken” in those pictures. 4 Accordingly, the prosecutor comments were based on and consistent with the e vidence, and defendant has no t established any plain error.

Finally, defendant complains t hat the prosecutor improperly ap pealed to the civic duty of the jury during closing argument. It is improper for a prosecu tor to “resort to civic duty arguments that appeal to the fears and prejudices of jury membe rs.” People v Bahoda , 448 Mich 261, 282-283; 531 NW2d 659 (1995).

In arguing that the prosecutor improperly asked the jurors to consider their civic duty, defendant points to a comment t he prosecutor made during his cl osing argument in rebuttal:

And the felony firearm, we’ll talk about the possession of a f irearm during the commission of a felony. The law is clear that if you posse ss a gun in certain circumstances it’s an extra crime and one of those crimes is if you’re a felon you committed a specified felony and you possess a gun they can als o charge you with an additional crime, possession of the firearm at the time you possessed a firearm.

Yeah, okay, but that’s what the legislature says and there’s areason for that. That they’ve decided that certain people can’t have guns and there should be a punishment or penalty for those people who have guns in viola tion of the law.

4 In fact, it is clear that he was not claiming that the padlock was broken in those pictures. As discussed in Part IV of this opinion, infra , defendant claims that the Facebook photos should have been admitted into evidence to show that the room was kept locked by his brother, which acted to keep defendant out of the room and therefore unable to “possess” the firearms.-7- Rather than appealing to the jur y’s sense of civic duty, this c omment was simply the prosecutor’s attempt to explain to the jury what the prosecutor characterize d as a confusing intersection of the law of felon-in-possession and fe lony-firearm, noting that the Legislature was responsible for the drafting of these laws. The pros ecutor obviously saw the need to give this explanation in response to the following de fense counsel’s comment:

What does possession mean? And are these firearms? And if yo u’re in possession or receipt of them then can you also be committing a separate crime of possessing them during the commission of another felon[y]; to-w it, possession o[r] receipt? Do you see how nonsensical it is?

The prosecutor’s comment did nothing to deprive defendant of hi s right to a fair trial; rather, it was responsive to defense counsel’s argument. And even if the prosecutor’s comment could be characterized as improper, a cur ative instruction would have al leviated any prejudice to defendant, and reversal is not warranted on this basis. Ackerman , 257 Mich App at 449.

Furthermore, because none of defendant’s raised issues of pros ecutorial misconduct has any merit, we reject his claim that the cumulative effect of th ese errors deprived him of a fair trial. See id. at 454.

III. AMENDMENT OF THE INFORMATION

Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it allowed th e prosecutor to amend the information during trial. This Court reviews for an abuse of d iscretion the trial court’s decision whether to allow an amendment of the information. People v McGee , 258 Mich App 683, 686- 687; 672 NW2d 191 (2003). To the extent that this issue requir es the interpretation of a statute or a court rule, this Court reviews such legal questions de nov o. Id . at 686. Defendant’s argument on appeal implicates his due process right to fair not ice of the charges against him. This Court reviews constitutional issues de novo. People v Patton , 285 Mich App 229, 236; 775 NW2d 610 (2009).

This Court has recognized that a defendant’s right to be fairl y apprised of the charges against him stems from the Sixth Amendment, which is applicable to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. People v Darden , 230 Mich App 597, 600; 585 NW2d 27 (1998). Further, the constitutional due process right to notice of the charge against a defendant “is not some abstract, legal technicality,” and it encompasses the very important right of a defendant to know the charges against him and to be able to fully respond. Id. at 601. To establish a due process violation, a defendant must be able to make a showing o f prejudice to his defense. McGee , 258 Mich App at 700.

The relevant statute, MCL 767.76, governs the amendment of “in dictments,” but in Michigan, unless there is specific notation otherwise, all laws pertaining to prosecution on indictment likewise apply to all prosecutions by information. Id. at 687, citing MCR 6.112(A). Thus, under the statute,

[a]n information may be amended at any time before, during, or after trial to cure any defect, imperfection, or omission in form or substance, inc luding a variance between the information and the proofs, as long as the accused is not prejudiced-8- by the amendment and the amendment does not charge a new crime. [ People v Higuera , 244 Mich App 429, 444; 625 NW2d 444 (2001) , citing MCL 767.76 and People v Stricklin , 162 Mich App 623, 633; 413 NW2d 457 (1987); see also MCR 6.112(H).]

In the instant matter, the pros ecutor notified defense counsel and the trial cour t at the start of trial of his intention to seek an amendment of the informati on. The prosecutor subsequently renewed his request at the close of the prosecution’s case. Th e original information only alleged that defendant “did possess” the firearms in counts I and II fo r the two felon-in-possession charges. The trial court granted the prosecutor’s request to a mend the information to say that defendant “did possess and/or receive” the firearms to match th e proofs 5 and to dovetail with the statutory language of MCL 750.224f. 6

Defendant complains that he was prejudiced by the amendment of the information where the jury expressed confusion about the amendment. First, while the jury did express a desire to understand why the language of the information was amended, the record does n ot support defendant’s assertion that the j ury was confused about the subs tance of the amended information. Second, the change was so minor that it could not have possibly prejudiced defendant in any way. In that regard, it is worthwhile to note that defendant w as acquitted of the two counts whose language was modified. He was convicted only of count II I, felony-firearm, which was not altered by the amendment. Acc ordingly, defendant has not m ade the requisite showing of prejudice as a result of the amendment, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the amendment.

IV. FACEBOOK PHOTOS

Defendant contends that he was d enied his constitutional right to present a defense when the trial court denied his request to introduce evidence of pho tographs from his Facebook page at trial. Defendant wanted the jury to see photos of a padlock se curing his brother’s bedroom door in the house. It is behind this door that defendant claims the firearms were discovered by the police. His theory is that beca use the door was padlocked and because he had no key to the lock, he could not be convicted of posse ssing anything inside the roo m. 7

5 It was the prosecution’s theorythat because defendant admitte d to the police that he got the firearms from his brother, he “received” them.

6 MCL 750.224f(1) and (2) provides that a “person convicted of a felony shall not possess , use, transport, sell, purchase, carry, ship, receive , or distribute a firearm in this state . . . .” (Emphasis added.)

7 Defendant testified that, even after his brother died some wee ks before the police raid, he kept the room in its locked condition.-9- While defendant sought to introduce the photos into evidence, 8 he never objected at the trial court that their exclusion denied him the right to presen t a defense. Accordingly, this issue is not preserved, see People v Danto , 294 Mich App 596, 605; 822 NW2d 600 (2011) (stating that “an objection on one ground is insufficient to preserve an appellate argument based on a different ground”), and we review it for plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights, People v Carines , 460 Mich 750, 764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

A criminal defendant has a constitutionally protected right to advance a defense. People v Steanhouse , ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 318329, issued Oct ober 22, 2015), slip op, p 10. The right to present a defense is not ab solute and will yield to rules of procedure and evidence that are necessary to protect fairness a nd reliability in the criminal trial
process. People v Hayes , 421 Mich 271, 279; 364 NW2d 635 (1985); Steanhouse , ___ Mich App at ___ (slip op at 10).

Here, the record reflects that defendant, after he testified o n the third day of trial, sought to introduce these Facebook photos into evidence. In doing so, defendant failed to comply with the trial court’s pretrial discovery order, which required him to notify the prosecution before trial about the existence of any documen t or photograph he intended t o use at trial. The trial court was within its discretion to deny defendant’s tardy request. M CR 6.201(J); People v Davie (After Remand) , 225 Mich App 592, 597-598; 571 NW2d 229 (1997). It was very clear that the trial court was relying on its o wn rules to ensure the integrit y, reliability, and efficiency of the trial court process. In denying defendant’s request, the trial court correctly noted that, this being the first time the photographs were mentioned, the prosecution was unable to vet them. This is particularly important because the issue defendant intended to raise—the door was kept locked, which prevented him from knowi ng (and possessing) what was insi de, including any firearms— involved an analysis of what did the photos purport to represen t and, more importantly, when were they taken. 9 Given the late nature of defendant’s request, the prosecution would have been unable to do any of these things.

Moreover, defendant was able to present his theory of the case when he testified extensively concerning the existence of the padlocked door of h is brother’s bedroom and how he was not aware of the existence of the guns in the home. It is important to note that defendant was able to introduce into evidence other photographs of the be droom—they just did not capture the status of the door or lock. Thus, defendant exhibited an ability to adhere to the court’s rules with regard to those photographs , and he offers no explanation why he was unable to follow that procedure for the Facebook photos. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its

8 Actually, defendant did not hav e any physical photos to introd uce. Instead, he wanted to allow the jury to electronically access his Facebook page to view the photos. But for our purposes, we simply will consider the issue to be one of admitting the photo s into evidence.

9 For instance, any photos that were taken months before defenda nt’s brother died (as was the case here) would have only slight relevance compared to ones th at were taken some time after his brother died but before the police seized the firearms.-10- discretion when it denied defendant’s request to admit any Face book photographs into evidence, and defendant has not shown how he was denied his constitutiona l right to present a defense.

V. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

Defendant asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel both before trial and during trial. 10 To properly preserve a claim of ineffective assistance of cou nsel, a defendant must move for a new trial or an evidentiary hearing in the tria l court. People v Petri , 279 Mich App 407, 410; 760 NW2d 882 (2008). A claim of ineffective assi stance of counsel presents a mixed question of law and fact. Id . This Court reviews a lower c ourt’s findings of fact for clea r error and the constitutional issues de novo. Id . Because defendant did not move for a new trial or an evidentiary hearing, this Court’s review is limited to mi stakes that are apparent from the record. People v Rodgers , 248 Mich App 702, 713-714; 645 NW2d 294 (2002).

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this Court, defendant must first establish that his trial counsel’s conduct in the lower c ourt did not meet an objective standard of reasonableness. People v Lopez , 305 Mich App 686, 694; 854 NW2d 205 (2014). Defendant also bears the onus of showing that he was prejudiced , specifically that but for his trial counsel’s errors, there exists a reasonable probability t hat the result of his trial would have been different. Id ., citing Strickland v Washington , 466 US 668, 694; 104 S Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984).

This Court will not interfere with defense counsel’s judgment regarding matters of trial strategy or second-guess defense counsel’s decisions with the b enefit of hindsight. Unger , 278 Mich App at 242-243. Also, defendant must make out the factual predicate for his claim. People v Hoag , 460 Mich 1, 6; 594 NW2d 57 (1999); People v Wood , 307 Mich App 485, 528; 862 NW2d 7 (2014). Defense counsel’s performance in not tender ing certain evidence will only rise to the level of ineffectiv e assistance of counsel where it deprived defendant of a substantial defense. People v Jackson (On Reconsideration) , ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 322350, issued December 3, 2015), slip op, p 11. “A substa ntial defense is one that might have made a difference in the outcome of the trial.” Id

. On appeal, defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of coun sel is essentially two-fold: (1) his trial counsel’s performance was deficient where he did not communicate with defendant before trial, and (2) both counsel ’s performances were deficien t where they failed to comply with the trial court’s pretrial disc overy order in relation to the a dmission of the Facebook photos.

Regarding the issue of his lack of communication with trial co unsel, defendant notes that he sought an adjournment the day of trial because the day befor e trial, when trial counsel attempted to talk with defendant in jail, defendant was never p roduced. Our close review of the lower court record did not yield any mistakes apparent from the record. Instead, the record clearly reflects that trial counsel swiftly prepared for trial and that trial counsel stood ready,

10 Defendant was represented by tw o different counsels during the course of these proceedings. Where appropriate, we will refer to them as “trial counsel” and “pretrial counsel” to distinguish.-11- willing, and prepared to proceed with defendant’s trial. Defen dant offers no explanation as to what trial counsel did incorrectly or, more importantly, how th e failed attempt to meet the day before prejudiced him. It is important to note that this is no t an instance where trial counsel never met with defendant before trial. Defendant at trial did not dispute that he met with trial counsel on or around June 19, 2014, and trial counsel stated onthe first day of trial on July 10, 2014, that he was prepared and ready to proceed. Defendant’s c ursory statement that he “was clearly prejudiced,” with nothing more, is insufficient to esta blish the necessary factual predicate to support his claim. See Hoag , 460 Mich at 6.

Concerning defendant’s alternate claim—that his pretrial couns el’s and trial counsel’s performances were constitutionally infirm because they did not comply with the trial court’s pretrial orders concerning disc overy—the decision to not tender evidence will only amount to ineffective assistance of counsel where defendant was deprived of a substantial defense. Jackson , ___ Mich App at ___ (slip op at 11). First, defendant points to nothing in the record establishing that his pretrial counsel was even aware of the Fa cebook photos to be able to take steps to move for their admission. Thus, he has failed to esta blish a factual predicate for this claim. See Hoag , 460 Mich at 6. Second, with respect to trial counsel, trial counsel stated at trial that he was “not able to find” the photos that defendant alleged existed. With nothing more, we decline to characterize trial counsel’s failure to seek the admission of the unseen and unproduced photos to be unreasonable. Furthermore, even if the Facebook photos had been introduced into evidence, there would not have been a reasonabl e probability that the result of the trial would have been differe nt. Defendant testified that the Facebook photos were taken many months earlier, in December 2013. Thus, even if the photo s reflected that the room was clearly locked at that time, it would not speak to the lock’s s tatus some four months later, let alone sometime after defendant’s brother had passed away. As a result, defendant simply is unable to demonstrate that produc ing the alleged photographs of the bedroom door being padlocked in December 2013 might have made a difference in the outcome of his trial. Moreover, defendant was able to fully advance his defense durin g his own testimony that the firearms in question were not his, that they belonged to his br other, and that he had no knowledge of or access to them because they were behind a padlo cked door. Under these facts, defendant was not deprived of a substantial defense.

Affirmed.

/s/ Henry William Saad /s/ Kurtis T. Wilder /s/ Christopher M. Murray