Court Opinion

ID: 9943305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 06:08:52.665024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:46.590079
License: Public Domain

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PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                   UNPUBLISHED
                                                                   February 22, 2024
               Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                                  No. 362084
                                                                   Wayne Circuit Court
OSWALD JOHN TALLENT,                                               LC No. 21-001053-01-FC

               Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PATEL, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and RIORDAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder
(AWIM), MCL 750.83, torture, MCL 750.85, assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than
murder (AWIGBH), MCL 750.84(1), and third-degree child abuse, MCL 750.136b(5). The trial
court sentenced defendant as a third-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.11, to concurrent prison
terms of 28 to 50 years each for the AWIM and torture convictions, 10 to 20 years for the AWIGBH
conviction, and two to four years for the child-abuse conviction. The court also assessed $1,300
in court costs. Defendant appeals as of right, and we affirm.

                                      I. BACKGROUND

        Defendant’s convictions arise from the March 30, 2020 assault of his wife and his then
eight-year-old daughter at their Canton Township home. The prosecution presented evidence at
trial that defendant attacked his wife with a gas-powered saw, causing serious injuries.
Defendant’s daughter ran from the house to summon help. Defendant caught his daughter,
slammed her head on the concrete, and strangled her. Defendant’s daughter escaped from his
grasp and ran to a neighbor’s house.

        The defense did not deny that defendant assaulted his wife and daughter, but claimed that
defendant was temporarily insane when he committed the crimes. The defense presented two
experts who both concluded that defendant was competent to stand trial. However, both experts
opined that defendant was legally insane when he committed the charged crimes and thus he was
not criminally responsible. The prosecution’s rebuttal expert opined that defendant was criminally
responsible. The trial court, sitting as the trier of fact, rejected defendant’s defense of temporary
insanity and found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of all of the charged
offenses. The court made detailed factual findings on the record, discussed the defense of insanity,
and explained why it rejected defendant’s claim that he was legally insane at the time of the
incident. The court concluded, “[W]hen you have a husband who is being told by his wife that she
is going to divorce him and he’d better get a job and work, and then comes in and says [‘]you think
you are so much better than me, die, I’ll kill you,[’] that shows to me that he’s angry with her and
it’s not about spaceships, it’s not about anything, it’s about harming his family.” Defendant moved
for a new trial, which the court denied, explaining that it found that the defense experts’ testimony
was “not credible.” This appeal followed.

                        II. THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDINGS OF FACT

       Defendant first argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court’s findings of
fact were clearly erroneous and its conclusions of law were legally erroneous. We disagree.

         We review a trial court’s findings of fact at a bench trial for clear error and its conclusions
of law de novo. People v Pennington, 323 Mich App 452, 464 n 7, 917 NW2d 720 (2018). De
novo review “means that [the appellate court] review[s] the issues independently, with no required
deference to the trial court.” People v Beck, 504 Mich 605, 618; 939 NW2d 213 (2019). A factual
finding is clearly erroneous if the appellate court is “left with a definite and firm conviction that
the trial court made a mistake.” People v Armstrong, 490 Mich 281, 289; 806 NW2d 676 (2011).
We give special deference to the trial court’s findings when those findings are based on witness
credibility. MCR 2.613(C).

              A. TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO REFERENCE M CRIM JI 7.14

        Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to “reference or consider” M Crim JI
7.14, a jury instruction on permanent or temporary insanity. M Crim JI 7.14 provides:

               Legal insanity may be permanent or temporary. You must decide whether
       the defendant was legally insane at the time of the alleged crime.

The use note provides that “[t]he committee recommends that this instruction be given if
requested.”

        This claim is without merit. Preliminarily, defendant faults the trial court for failing to
expressly reference a jury instruction that legal insanity can be temporary or permanent. Defendant
was tried before the court, not a jury. “In a bench trial, the trial court is presumed to know the
applicable law.” People v Lanzo Constr Co, 272 Mich App 470, 484; 726 NW2d 746 (2006).
Defendant has not offered any authority that requires a trial court to cite and consider the content
of a jury instruction, specifically M Crim JI 7.14, when issuing its verdict after a bench trial. A
defendant abandons his claims when he fails to make a meaningful argument in support of his
position. See MCR 7.212(C)(7); People v Payne, 285 Mich App 181, 188; 774 NW2d 714 (2009).
Consequently, this claim may be considered abandoned.

                                                  -2-
         Nevertheless, we conclude that defendant has not demonstrated any error. Defendant
suggests that the trial court should have considered this jury instruction because he “had a clear
defense of temporary insanity” and “the trial court seemed to misapply the law regarding
temporary insanity” because, in its findings of fact, it stated: “Now he had heard voices and [it]
was explained why he may have been able to conform himself at times but not others but he was
able to conform himself legally—legally on other issues.” Defendant further states that the
instruction “would have provided legal support for the proposition that an individual can be legally
insane at one moment and criminally responsible at another,” “would have provided legal guidance
to the trial court, which appeared to be confused regarding the concept of an individual’s ability to
conform themselves with the law at some times but not at others,” and “would have also provided
the necessary context to M Crim 7.13” because “it was the defense’s position that [defendant] was
temporarily insane at the time of the offense.”

        The record is clear that the trial court understood the applicable law, was aware that the
defense theory at trial was that defendant was temporarily insane, and issued findings of fact and
conclusions of law on the basis of what happened at the time of the charged offenses. When the
court summarized the testimony of the two defense experts and the prosecutor’s rebuttal expert, it
focused on defendant’s state of mind at the time he committed the crimes. Also, the court read M
Crim JI 7.131 in its explanation of the defense of insanity and its rejection of that defense. And
when the court subsequently denied defendant’s motion for a new trial, it reiterated that it rejected
the defense that defendant was legally insane at the time of the alleged crimes. Defendant has not
demonstrated any error. The trial court is presumed to know the applicable law, Lanzo Constr Co,
272 Mich App at 484, and the record shows that the trial court was aware of defendant’s affirmative
defense of temporary insanity, specifically, that he was legally insane when he committed the
offenses, and the substance of M Crim JI 7.13, which the trial court cited on the record, covered
the substance of M Crim JI 7.14.

                     B. ACCURACY OF THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDINGS

        Next, defendant argues that the trial court erred by misstating the testimony of one of his
experts “as it related to an alleged ‘motive’ for [defendant] to commit the offenses due to marital
discord.” Defendant states that “[d]espite [the expert’s] clear testimony that marital relationships
are emotionally charged and that the actions taken by [defendant] at the time of the offense were
‘determined by psychosis,’ the trial court interpreted this testimony as establishing a ‘secondary
motive’ to commit the offenses.” In particular, when summarizing the expert’s testimony, the trial
court stated that the marital discord between defendant and his wife when defendant committed
the crimes “could be a secondary motive, not a primary motive.”

1
    Crim JI 7.13 provides:
                You must judge the defendant’s mental state at the time of the alleged crime.
         You may consider evidence about [his / her] mental condition before and after the
         crime, but only to help you judge [his / her] mental state at the time of the alleged
         crime.

                                                 -3-
        In a bench trial, factual findings are sufficient if it appears that the trial court was aware of
the issues in the case and correctly applied the law. People v Smith, 211 Mich App 233, 235; 535
NW2d 248 (1995). In making findings of fact, the trier of fact may make reasonable inferences
from the evidence in the record, but may not make inferences completely unsupported by any
direct or circumstantial evidence. People v Vaughn, 186 Mich App 376, 379-380; 465 NW2d 365
(1990).

         Contrary to defendant’s argument, there is no indication in the record that the trial court
misstated or misunderstood the expert’s opinion regarding the effect of the marital discord.
Instead, there was evidence from which a trier of fact could reasonably infer that the doctor
considered marital discord as a secondary reason for defendant’s conduct. Indeed, the expert
testified that “marital relationships are emotionally charged and they’re fraught with
ambivalence.” But the doctor further stated:

                The point that he may have had negative or hostile aggressive feelings
        towards his spouse or feelings of resentment, those things come out in a marriage.
        Acting on it in this way under these circumstances, not only having to kill his wife,
        but his children, his parents, and himself, that coming out in such a bizarre way still
        tells me that it was primarily determined by a mental illness or a psychosis.
        [Emphasis added.]

It was clear to the trial court, as expressed in its findings, that the expert opined that defendant’s
conduct was “primarily” determined by a mental illness or psychosis, and not primarily marital
discord. The mere fact that the expert did not use the precise phrase “secondary motive” does not
mean that the court misstated or misunderstood his opinion. The record shows that the court was
well-informed of the expert’s findings and conclusions and there is no indication that the court
misunderstood the expert’s testimony.

        The record evidence supports the trial court’s finding that defendant did not prove his
insanity defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court explained, in detail, its reasons
for crediting plaintiff’s expert over the defense experts. In particular, the court took issue with the
failure of the defense experts to consider that when defendant was assaulting his wife, he remarked,
“you think you’re so much better than me” and “why won’t you just die,” after his wife gave him
an ultimatum related to obtaining a job and divorcing him. The court also emphasized that
defendant made no remarks about alien spaceships or the Illuminati while he was assaulting his
wife. Given defendant’s remarks and conduct during the incident, a rational fact-finder could
conclude that defendant was not legally insane—that he knew what he was doing—when he
committed the crimes. Although defendant takes issue with the court’s view of his defense experts’
testimony, “a trier of fact is not bound to accept the opinion of an expert.” People v Kanaan, 278
Mich App 594, 620; 751 NW2d 57 (2008) (cleaned up). And we cannot interfere with the trier of
fact’s determinations of credibility or the weight of the evidence. Id. at 619. Accordingly,
defendant is not entitled to a new trial.

                                 III. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE

        Defendant further argues that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request that the
trial court consider and “expressly reference” M Crim JI 7.14 in its findings. We disagree.

                                                  -4-
        The United States and Michigan Constitutions afford criminal defendants the right to
effective assistance of counsel. People v Yeager, 511 Mich 478, 488; 999 NW2d 490 (2023),
citing Const 1963, art 1, § 20; US Const Am VI; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668; 104 S Ct
2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). An ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim presents a “mixed
question of fact and constitutional law.” Yeager, 511 Mich at 487. Constitutional questions are
reviewed de novo, while the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Id.

        To preserve a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for appellate review, a defendant
must do one of three things: raise the issue in a motion for a new trial, raise the issue in a motion
for an evidentiary hearing, People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69, 80; 829 NW2d 266 (2012), or raise
the issue in a motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing, People v Abcumby-Blair, 335 Mich
App 210, 227; 966 NW2d 437 (2020). Defendant did none of these things and thus our review of
this unpreserved issue is limited to errors apparent on the record. People v Head, 323 Mich App
526, 538-539; 917 NW2d 752 (2018).

       To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, “a defendant must show that (1) counsel’s
performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) but for counsel’s deficient
performance, there is a reasonable probability that [the] outcome would have been different.”
Yeager, 511 Mich at 488 (cleaned up). “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. (cleaned up). The effective assistance of counsel is
presumed, and the burden is on the defendant to establish the contrary. People v Roscoe, 303 Mich
App 633, 644; 846 NW2d 402 (2014).

        “Trial counsel is responsible for preparing, investigating, and presenting all substantial
defenses,” and “[f]ailing to request a particular jury instruction can be a matter of trial strategy.”
People v Thorne, 322 Mich App 340, 347; 912 NW2d 560 (2017) (cleaned up). As discussed, (1)
defendant has failed to offer supporting authority for his claim that the trial court, sitting as the
trier of fact, was required to specifically read and consider the content of a jury instruction,
specifically M Crim JI 7.14, when issuing its verdict after a bench trial; (2) the trial court is
presumed to know the applicable law, Lanzo Constr Co, 272 Mich App at 484; (3) the record
clearly shows that the trial court knew that the defense theory at trial was that defendant was legally
insane when he committed the offense (thereby obviating any need to cite a jury instruction that
insanity may be permanent or temporary); and (4) the substance of M Crim JI 7.13, which the trial
court quoted on the record, covered the substance of M Crim JI 7.14. Defense counsel’s decision
not to request that the court consider and expressly cite M Crim JI 7.14 was not objectionably
unreasonable, and did not prejudice defendant. Failure to make a “futile” request does not
constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, Head, 323 Mich App at 539, nor will we second-guess
matters of trial strategy or “assess counsel’s competence with the benefit of hindsight.” People v
Abcumby-Blair, 335 Mich App 210, 237; 966 NW2d 437 (2020) (cleaned up).

              IV. DISPROPORTIONATE AND UNREASONABLE SENTENCES

       Next, defendant argues that his within-guidelines sentences for torture and AWIM are
unreasonable and disproportionate. We disagree.

      “Sentencing decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” People v Boykin, 510 Mich
171, 182; 987 NW2d 58 (2022). “[W]ithin-guidelines sentences are to be reviewed for

                                                 -5-
reasonableness[.]” People v Posey, 512 Mich 317, 359; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No.
162373) (Opinion by BOLDEN, J.). “[T]he key to reasonableness review is whether the sentence
is proportionate.” Id. Thus, “the proper inquiry when reviewing a sentence for reasonableness is
whether the trial court abused its discretion by violating the ‘principle of proportionality’ set forth
in People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630, 636; 461 NW2d 1 (1999), ‘which requires sentences imposed
by the trial court to be proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the
offense and the offender.’ ” People v Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453, 459-460; 902 NW2d 327 (2017).

        “When a trial court sentences a defendant within the guidelines’ recommended range, it
creates a presumption that the sentence is proportionate.” Posey, 512 Mich at 360. To overcome
that presumption, “the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that their within-guidelines
sentence is unreasonable or disproportionate.” Id. at 359. Factors that may be considered by a
trial court under the proportionality standard include, but are not limited to:

       (1) the seriousness of the offense; (2) factors that were inadequately considered by
       the guidelines; and (3) factors not considered by the guidelines, such as the
       relationship between the victim and the aggressor, the defendant’s misconduct
       while in custody, the defendant’s expressions of remorse, and the defendant’s
       potential for rehabilitation. [People v Lampe, 327 Mich App 104, 126; 933 NW2d
       314 (2019) (cleaned up).]

       In this case, it is undisputed that the applicable guidelines range was 135 to 337 months,
and the trial court sentenced defendant to a minimum term of 336 months, which is within the
guidelines range. Therefore, defendant’s sentence is presumptively proportionate. Posey, ___
Mich at 360. A defendant may overcome the presumptive proportionality of a within-guidelines
sentence by “present[ing] unusual circumstances that would render the presumptively
proportionate sentence disproportionate.” People v Bowling, 299 Mich App 552, 558; 830 NW2d
800 (2013) (cleaned up); see also Milbourn, 435 Mich at 636 (“Conceivably, even a sentence
within the sentencing guidelines could be an abuse of discretion in unusual circumstances.”).
“Unusual” means “uncommon, not usual, rare.” People v Sharp, 192 Mich App 501, 505; 481
NW2d 773 (1992) (cleaned up).

         Defendant argues that his 28-year minimum sentences are disproportionate and
unreasonable because the trial court failed to consider the extensive evidence presented at trial
regarding his mental state at the time of the offenses. Although defendant’s two experts found that
he was competent to stand trial, defendant emphasizes that his experts both testified that he was
not criminally responsible because he was legally insane at the time of the incident. Defendant
recognizes that “the court ultimately rejected his insanity defense,” but then cursorily states that
“this evidence was still relevant at the time of sentencing as [the defense] provided mitigating
evidence regarding [defendant’s] culpability at the time of the offenses.” However, the trial court,
as the trier of fact, rejected defendant’s defense of insanity and found him guilty as charged. The
trial court made it very clear, especially in its decision denying defendant’s motion for a new trial,
that it found that the testimony of the defense experts regarding defendant’s mental state was “not
credible.” Defendant has provided no analysis or legal support for his cursory claim that evidence
rejected by the trier of fact at trial must be considered by the court at sentencing. Defendant has
not presented an unusual circumstance to overcome the presumptive proportionality of his within-
guidelines sentences. Bowling, 299 Mich App at 558.

                                                 -6-
        We further note that the prosecutor requested a sentence that exceeded defendant’s
guidelines range, but the trial court imposed a sentence within the guidelines as requested by
defense counsel. The trial court explained at sentencing that defendant’s actions caused trauma
and injuries to his family, and stated that the facts in this case were “extremely disturbing.” The
court articulated that “[n]o wife should ever have to have a circular saw taken to them, and being
cut up,” “[n]o child should have their head banged, over and over again, on concrete,” and that the
“only blessing” is that defendant’s wife and children are still alive. The court concluded that a
within-guidelines sentence was appropriate, but “based on the horrific facts” in this case, a
sentence near the top of the guidelines was “more than appropriate.” The court’s comments at
sentencing demonstrate that it considered the circumstances of the offense and the applicable
guidelines range to determine an appropriate penalty. Defendant has failed to present any unusual
circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption of proportionality.

                    V. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MCL 769.1K(1)(B)(iii)

        In his last claim, defendant challenges the trial court’s assessment of court costs under
MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii). He argues that the statute is unconstitutional because it (1) infringes on
his due-process right to appear before an impartial judge because trial court judges are incentivized
to convict defendants in order to impose costs to raise money to fund the courts, and (2) violates
the separation of powers because the funding arrangement created by the statute prevents the
judicial branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions of maintaining
impartiality in criminal proceedings. As defendant recognizes, this Court considered and rejected
these same arguments in People v Johnson, 336 Mich App 688, 692-705; 971 NW2d 692 (2021).
Defendant has failed to present any basis for distinguishing Johnson, which we are bound to follow
under MCR 7.215(J)(1). Therefore, we reject this claim of error.

       Affirmed.

                                                              /s/ Sima G. Patel
                                                              /s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
                                                              /s/ Michael J. Riordan

                                                -7-