Sufficiency of the evidence to support the defendant’s CSC I convictions under MCL 750.520b(1)(b)(i); People v. Phillips; Sexual penetration defined (MCL 750.520a(r)); Members of the same household; People v. Garrison; Principle that no physical evidence is required to establish the elements of CSC I; People v. Szalma; Principle that a victim’s testimony may be sufficient in CSC cases to support a defendant’s conviction; People v. Solloway; MCL 750.520h; Credibility; People v. Harrison; People v. Noble; Effect of the fact the victim could not remember all the details of the assaults; Distinguishing People v. Callahan; Sentencing; Principle that a reasonableness & proportionality argument only applies to minimum sentences that depart from the recommended guidelines sentence range; People v. Schrauben; Claim that the trial court gave no reasoning for the sentences as required by People v. Lockridge; People v. Conley

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s CSC I convictions under MCL 750.520b(1)(b)(i) and rejecting his challenges to his sentences, the court affirmed his convictions and sentences. The victim was his fiancé’s 14-year-old daughter. He did not contest her age or the fact that they were members of the same household. The issue was whether there was sufficient evidence that sexual penetration occurred. While he argued that there was insufficient evidence because there was no physical evidence, physical evidence is not necessary to establish the elements of CSC I. As to his challenge to the victim’s credibility, the jury heard the testimony of the victim and her school social worker, and determined their credibility when it found defendant guilty. He also contended that the victim was not credible because she could not recall all the details of the assaults. The court found the case on which he relied, Callahan, was distinguishable. In Callahan, the victim was not unable to remember “any additional acts of penetration beyond the first act, and there was insufficient circumstantial evidence” for the court to “conclude the additional acts took place.” In this case, the victim remembered “each act of penetration (specifically more than 10 acts, one of which involved fellatio and one of which involved cunnilingus, and multiple penetrations with his penis);” she did not recall “the details surrounding the acts. Thus, since the victim was able to recall the multiple acts of penetration, her testimony provided sufficient evidence for the jury to make its credibility determination.” While defendant also claimed his sentences were unreasonable and disproportionate, his minimum term of 132 months’ imprisonment fell within his applicable guidelines range (81 to 135 months). “A reasonableness and proportionality argument only applies to minimum sentences that depart from the recommended guidelines sentence range.” As to his argument that the trial court failed to comply with Lockridge because it gave no reasoning for his sentences, the court disagreed, concluding that “the trial court satisfied its articulation requirement.”