People v. Jackson — Court affirms home-invasion, firearm, drug, assault, and unlawful-imprisonment convictions and sentences

Case
People of the State of Michigan v. Orlando Adriel Jackson
Court
Michigan Court of Appeals
Judge
Michael F. Gadola (Rick Snyder, 2014); Mark T. Boonstra (Rick Snyder, 2012); Thomas C. Cameron (Rick Snyder, 2017)
Date Decided
September 17, 2026
Docket No.
370997; 373973
Topics
Criminal Law; Sufficiency of Evidence; Right to Counsel; Witness Availability
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Orlando Adriel Jackson and several companions forced their way into the Port Huron home of Jackson’s daughter, Kayla McCoy, the night after she had removed him from her birthday party for instigating confrontations. Witnesses testified that Jackson repeatedly punched McCoy’s husband, Jacob White, while Jackson’s companion James Johnson struck White with a handgun. Another companion blocked the bedroom doorway, confining White and three children, while an unidentified woman restrained McCoy outside the room.

A jury convicted Jackson of first-degree home invasion, felonious assault, felon-in-possession, delivery of less than 50 grams of a controlled substance, assault, unlawful imprisonment, and three counts of felony-firearm. After correcting a sentencing error, the circuit court resentenced Jackson as a fourth-offense habitual offender to multiple concurrent terms—including 23 to 40 years for home invasion and 15 to 30 years for unlawful imprisonment—served consecutively to mandatory two-year terms for the felony-firearm convictions. Jackson appealed both judgments of sentence.

The Court’s Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the trial court acted within its discretion by denying Jackson’s requests for substitute appointed counsel because his disagreement with counsel about accepting a plea offer, generalized lack of confidence, and unsupported complaints about counsel’s preparation did not establish good cause. The approaching trial date also supported the court’s conclusion that substitution would disrupt the proceedings.

The court also upheld the removal of White from the prosecution’s witness list. Investigators searched law-enforcement and state databases, called associated telephone numbers, and repeatedly attempted service at White’s listed address. Those efforts constituted due diligence. Jackson also failed to show prejudice because he did not establish that White would have offered favorable, material testimony, and substantial other evidence implicated Jackson. For the same reasons, the trial court properly declined to give a missing-witness instruction and denied an adjournment.

Sufficient evidence supported the challenged firearm and unlawful-imprisonment convictions. Jackson acted in concert with Johnson, knew where the gun was, remained near it, and participated in the attack, supporting constructive joint possession and aiding-and-abetting liability for felony-firearm. Evidence that Jackson’s companions restrained McCoy and blocked the bedroom while Jackson assaulted White supported unlawful imprisonment. The circuit court had subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction, Jackson’s sovereign-citizen-style arguments lacked merit, and the record did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel or alteration of the trial transcript.

Key Takeaways

  • A defendant’s generalized dissatisfaction with appointed counsel or disagreement over a plea recommendation does not establish good cause for substitution.
  • Due diligence requires reasonable efforts to locate an endorsed witness, not every conceivable effort, and reversal additionally requires the defendant to demonstrate prejudice from the witness’s absence.
  • Constructive firearm possession may be joint when participants act in concert and the defendant knows the weapon’s location and can reasonably access it.
  • An accomplice’s restraint of victims can support unlawful-imprisonment liability when the defendant aids the coordinated offense and intends the restraint facilitating another felony.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates the fact-specific nature of due diligence when prosecutors cannot locate an endorsed witness and confirms that the witness’s absence alone does not entitle a defendant to a new trial. A defendant must identify material, favorable testimony that the missing witness likely would have provided.

It also demonstrates how concerted conduct during a home invasion may support constructive possession and aiding-and-abetting liability even when another participant physically carries the firearm or restrains the victims.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top