Background
Jason Juan Kellar was convicted by a jury of two counts of assault with intent to murder and two counts of felony-firearm for shooting Jorie Edwards and Alexis Sugura-Rubio. Sugura-Rubio testified that he saw Kellar emerge from an SUV holding a gun before the shooting began. Edwards did not see the shooter, but believed Kellar was in the vehicle and told her mother shortly after the shooting that Kellar had shot her.
Kellar moved for a new trial or an evidentiary hearing, alleging that trial counsel was ineffective in handling the bindover, his speedy-trial rights, a plea offer, a proposed expert witness, and testimony from Edwards and her mother. The trial court denied the motion, and Kellar appealed as of right.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Kellar failed to establish deficient performance or prejudice on any of his ineffective-assistance claims. A motion to quash the bindover would have been futile because Sugura-Rubio’s identification and the other evidence established probable cause, and any bindover error would have been harmless after Kellar’s conviction on sufficient trial evidence.
The court also held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek dismissal on speedy-trial grounds despite the approximately 58-month delay. Much of the delay resulted from COVID-19 restrictions, defense-requested or agreed adjournments, the death and replacement of Kellar’s first attorney, and defense preparation; Kellar also failed to show that the delay impaired his defense. His plea claim lacked a sufficient factual basis and was contradicted by his statement at sentencing that he repeatedly rejected a four-year offer because he maintained his innocence.
Kellar likewise failed to show that counsel inadequately investigated or mishandled the proposed expert, Steve Wittebort, because he supplied no reports, résumé, or affidavit establishing that Wittebort could qualify or offer admissible testimony. Counsel reasonably used cross-examination to emphasize that Edwards had not seen the shooter, and Edwards’s statement to her mother was properly admitted as an excited utterance. With no established individual errors, the cumulative-error claim also failed.
Key Takeaways
- Counsel is not ineffective for declining to pursue a futile motion to quash when identification testimony supplies probable cause for bindover.
- A lengthy pretrial delay does not establish a speedy-trial violation when much of it stems from pandemic restrictions, defense-related delays, and counsel changes, and the defendant cannot show prejudice to the defense.
- An ineffective-assistance claim involving a rejected plea or proposed expert requires record evidence establishing both deficient advice or preparation and resulting prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the demanding factual showing required to obtain a new trial based on ineffective assistance. Assertions in an unsigned, unsworn affidavit—and claims contradicted by statements made at sentencing—will not establish that counsel’s performance changed the outcome.
The opinion also shows how Michigan courts evaluate pandemic-era speedy-trial claims: even a delay approaching five years will not warrant relief without weighing responsibility for the delay and identifying concrete harm to the defense.