Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re Qlm Minor

Michigan Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 374932
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Disposition: Lower Court Judgment/Order Affirmed

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Lower Court Judgment/Order Affirmed

Lead Opinion

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

In re QLM, Minor.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED
March 16, 2026
Petitioner-Appellee, 9:42 AM

v No. 374932
Berrien Circuit Court
QLM, Juvenile Division
LC No. 2024-000391-DL;
2024-000387-DL
Respondent-Appellant.

Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and O’BRIEN and YOUNG, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent appeals the trial court’s dispositional order referring him to in-home probation.
Respondent was adjudicated after pleading guilty to one count of carrying a concealed weapon
(CCW), MCL 750.227(2), and two counts of breaking and entering into a motor vehicle to steal
property less than $200, MCL 750.356a(2)(a). We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Respondent was caught breaking into two cars and attempting to steal items from them.
After he was apprehended, a firearm was found in his backpack. He was later charged with one
count of CCW and two counts of breaking and entering into a motor vehicle to steal property less
than $200. Respondent pleaded guilty to all three charges.

At the dispositional hearing, respondent’s probation officer recommended that respondent
be released to in-home probation with a tether. Defense counsel asked the court to follow this
recommendation but without a tether.

In its ruling, the court impressed upon respondent the dangers of firearms, especially for
someone his age; discussed reports that respondent had been using marijuana and encouraged
respondent to stop because the effects of marijuana on a developing brain had not been sufficiently
studied; and commended respondent on his improvement in school and the steps that he had taken
-1-
to find a job. The court concluded that, on this record and in light of respondent’s progress, the
probation officer’s recommendation—in-home probation with a tether—was appropriate.

This appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

Respondent argues that his trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient assistance when
he failed to request that the trial court give respondent a warning and dismiss the case.

Whether a party was denied the effective assistance of counsel presents a mixed question
of fact and constitutional law—a trial court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error, while
the constitutional question whether the party was denied their right to effective counsel is reviewed
de novo. In re LT, 342 Mich App 126, 133; 992 NW2d 903 (2022). When, as here, there are no
factual findings to review, our review is limited to mistakes apparent on the record. Id.

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the respondent must demonstrate
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.” People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51; 826 NW2d 136 (2012). Effective
assistance of counsel is presumed, and the respondent bears a substantial burden of proving
otherwise. People v Johnson, 293 Mich App 79, 90-91; 808 NW2d 815 (2011).

Respondent contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing “to make a request
for a warn and dismiss resolution.” Unfortunately, respondent wholly fails to explain why it was
objectively unreasonable for his trial counsel to not make this request. By the time counsel could
have made this request, respondent had already pleaded guilty, and his sentence was up to the trial
court. While respondent’s trial counsel certainly could have requested a lighter punishment,
decisions like that are quintessential matters of trial strategy, and “[w]e will not substitute our
judgment for that of counsel on matters of trial strategy, nor will we use the benefit of hindsight
when assessing counsel’s competence.” People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 242–43; 749 NW2d
272 (2008).

Regardless, respondent’s argument also ignores the fact that his trial counsel did request a
lesser punishment than was imposed. Respondent’s trial counsel requested that respondent not be
ordered to wear a tether, but the trial court apparently disagreed that a lesser punishment was
appropriate because it placed respondent on probation with a tether. This alone demonstrates that,
even if respondent’s trial counsel had requested “a warn and dismiss resolution,” there was not a
reasonable probability that his sentence would have been different. See Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich
at 51.

Affirmed.

/s/ Michael J. Riordan
/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien
/s/ Adrienne N. Young

-2-