Sufficiency of the evidence to support the defendant’s CSC II, gross indecency, accosting a child for immoral purposes, & aggravated indecent exposure convictions; Witness credibility; People v. Diaz; People v. Lemmon; Sentencing; Scoring of OVs 4, 8, 9, & 10; People v. Hardy; MCL 777.34(1); People v. Waclawski; People v. Davenport (After Remand); MCL 777.38(1); People v. Thompson; MCL 777.38(1)(a); People v. Spanke; People v. Steele; MCL 777.39(1)(c); MCL 777.40(1)(a); “Predatory conduct” (MCL 777.40(3)(a)); Constitutionality of appellate review of sentences; MCL 769.34(10); “Plain error” review; People v. Carines; People v. Taylor; Separation of powers argument; People v. Garza; Procedural & substantive due process rights to appeal; Dodge v. Detroit Trust Co.; Proportionality of defendant’s sentences when they were within the guidelines range; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. LeBlanc; People v. Mack; People v. Dunigan

Rejecting the defendant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in scoring OVs 4, 8, 9, and 10, and concluding that MCL 769.34(10) did not unconstitutionally interfere with his right to appeal, the court affirmed his convictions and his sentences. He was convicted of CSC II, gross indecency between a male and female, accosting a child for immoral purposes, and aggravated indecent exposure. He was sentenced to “86 months to 15 years for the CSC II convictions, 40 months to 5 years for the gross indecency convictions, 32 months to 4 years for the accosting convictions, and 16 months to 2 years for the indecent exposure convictions, with credit for 60 days served.” As to his alibi evidence argument, it is “‘within the jury’s province to determine the credibility of all witnesses, including any whose testimony tends to establish an alibi.’” Further, this rule “applies even if testimony is in direct conflict or has been impeached.” Thus, his “questioning of the victims’ contradictory testimony presented an issue for resolution by the trier of fact. The jury, having convicted defendant of the charges, necessarily determined that the victims were credible” and that his testimony “he was not present when the alleged crimes occurred was not credible.” The court upheld the trial court’s scoring of 10 points for OV 4, concluding that the “victims’ statements that they were in fact receiving counseling to deal with the emotions associated with the incidents was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding” that they suffered “a serious psychological injury.” It also upheld the scoring of 15 points for OV 8, rejecting defendant’s argument that a victim’s movement to the bedroom “was merely incidental to the crime.” It upheld the 10-point score for OV 9, finding that the victims’ accounts “that another girl was present when defendant touched them” were sufficient to support this score. “Even if the touching occurred over the victims’ clothing, they were nonetheless placed in danger of physical injury.” Finally, defendant’s pre-CSC II actions were sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that he engaged in predatory conduct and to support the 15-point score for OV 10.