Was the evidence insufficient to convict Mr. McCoy of each offense, and should this court reverse his convictions pursuant to federal and state constitutional amendments?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ISSUE I Was the Evidence Insufficient to convict Mr. McCoy of each offense. Should this court should reverse his convictions pursuant to federal and state constitutional amendments? V, VI, XIV, Mich Const. art 1 § 17, 20, and according to People v. Hampton, 407 Mich 354, (1979), and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). Answered “yes” Respondent-Appellee Answered “no” ISSUE I Was it an abused of discretion when trial court denied Mr. McCoy’s Motion for a Change of Venue due to the trial’s publicity, along with the exclusion of minority jurors? Defendant was denied his due process right to a fair trial under the State and Federal Constitution. U.S. Const. Amendment V, VI, XIV, Mich Const. 1963 art 1 § 17, 20. ' ; Answered “yes” Respondent-Appellee Answered “no” ISSUE IT Was Mr. McCoy denied his right to a fair trial? Because the trial court abused its discretion in denying his Motion for a Mistrial, due to the improper jury selection process, were minority jurors were systematically excluded? He was denied his right to due process under the Federal and State Constitutions. U.S. Const, art IV, V, VI, Mich Const. 1963, art 1 § 17, and 20. Answered “yes” Respondent-Appellee Answered “no” ISSUE IV Was Mr. McCoy denied his right to due process of law and a trial when he was not allowed to present a defense? Did prosecution withhold a victim impact statement, which would have impeached the credibility | of a complaining witness, and could have changed the jury’s verdict? In violation of federal and state constitutions. | Answered “yes” | | Respondent-Appellee Answered “no” | ISSUE V Was Mr. McCoy denied his constitutional right to the Effective Assistance of counsel? Trial counsel failed to request that MI Crim. JI 4.5 be given to the jury. Stipulating to the defendant’s prior criminal conviction for Felon in Possession of a firearm charge. Was Defendant denied his due process of law under the federal and state constitutional guarantee for the effective assistance of counsel? Answered “yes” Respondent-Appellee Answered “no” ISSUE VI Was Mr. McCoy, denied a fair trial and due process? The trial court erroneously gave MI Crim. JI 4.4, were the evidence did not support it, and MI Crim. JI 17.10, and 17.11. Were they did not include the definition of a shotgun, and as a result it violated Defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights to a fair trial. Answered “yes” Respondent-Appellee Answered “no” ; ISSUE VII : Did the trial Judge engaged in impermissible judicial fact-finding, by erroneously ruling that there were sufficient facts to support the scoring of offense variable’s 3,4, and 5? When the facts established at trial did not support them beyond a reasonable doubt. Is defendant entitled to resentencing pursuant to the federal and Michigan constitutions? U.S. Const. Amend V, VI, Mich Const. 1963 art 1 § 17, and 20. Answered “yes” Respondent-Appellee Answered “no” ISSUE VII , | Was Mr. McCoy denied due process of law? Should he been allowed to be present during the proceeding , of his arraignment, or enter of plea? In order for the waiver of any constitutional and procedural right to be valid, it must be knowing, and voluntarily waiver of them, through an intentional relinquishment. Answered “yes” Respondent-Appellee Answered “no” ) vii