Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Harverson; People v. Reese; People v. Hampton; Operating or maintaining a meth lab; MCL 333.7401c(1); People v. Meshell; “Lab equipment”; MCL 333.7401c(7)(b); Using meth; MCL 333.7404; Constructive possession; People v. Fetterley; People v. Konrad; People v. McKinney; Circumstantial evidence; People v. Lee; Sentencing; Reasonableness & proportionality; People v. Lockridge; People v. Milbourn; People v. Walden; People v. Steanhouse (On Remand); People v. Odom; Principle that the court must affirm a within-guidelines sentence absent an error; MCL 769.34(10); People v. Anderson; People v. Schrauben; Payment of court-appointed attorney costs; MCL 769.1k & l; MCL 771.3(6)(b); Fuller v. Oregon; People v. Jackson

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions, that there were no errors in sentencing, and that the trial court did not err by requiring him to pay court-appointed attorney costs from his prison account. He was convicted of operating or maintaining a meth lab, second or subsequent offense, possession of meth, second or subsequent offense, and use of meth, second or subsequent offense. The trial court sentenced to him to 10 to 40 years for operating or maintaining a meth lab, 46 months to 20 years for possession of meth, and 13 to 24 months for use of meth. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of operating or maintaining a meth lab or using meth. The prosecution “presented legally sufficient evidence that defendant had possession of the materials necessary to manufacture” meth, and also, legally sufficient evidence that he used it. Further, defendant did not “allege that the trial court relied on inaccurate information or that there was an error in scoring offense variables or any prior record variables.” Finally, the court rejected his contention that the trial court erred by requiring him to pay $1,900 in court-appointed attorney costs and by garnishing his prison account for this purpose, noting he did not present “a petition or proofs of his unique and extraordinary financial circumstances that would necessitate a finding by the trial court ‘that enforcement would work a manifest hardship on the [him] or his immediate family.’” Affirmed.