Admission of photographic evidence; Relevance; MRE 401; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v. Gayheart; People v. Head; Intent; People v. Stevens; Corroboration; People v. Mills; Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Konrad; Assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH); People v. Blevins; Unlawful imprisonment; MCL 750.349b; “Restrain”; MCL 750.349b(3)(a); Credibility; MCR 2.613(C); People v. Muhammad; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Riley; Strickland v. Washington; People v. Pickens; People v. Hoag; Prejudice; People v. Nix; Right to the effective assistance of counsel in the plea-bargaining process; People v. Pennington; Sentencing; Reasonableness; People v. Dixon-Bey; People v. Powell; Proportionality; People v. Bowling; Principle that the court must affirm a within-guidelines sentence absent error; People v. Schrauben; Prohibition against cruel & unusual punishment; U.S. Const. amend. VIII; People v. Bullock

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the four close-up photos of the victim’s face, that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s convictions, and that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. It also held that there were no errors in sentencing. He was convicted of unlawful imprisonment and AWIGBH. The trial court sentenced him as a third-offense habitual offender to concurrent terms of 160 to 360 months for the unlawful imprisonment conviction and 160 to 240 months for the AWIGBH conviction. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by admitting four close-up photos of the victim’s face because the prejudicial effect of the photos unfairly outweighed their probative value. It found that they “were relevant to assist the jury in determining whether defendant intended to inflict great bodily harm upon the [victim] or were injuries incurred in subduing her assault.” They also “provided the jury with a better understanding of the witnesses’ testimony regarding the nature and extent of the injuries.” The court next rejected his claim that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence of intent to support his convictions. As to AWIGBH, it noted that the evidence, which showed “an assault of overwhelming brutality, was sufficient for a trier of fact to infer that defendant intended the natural consequences of his actions, that is, the infliction of serious injury of an aggravated nature.” As to unlawful imprisonment, it found that “a rational juror could infer that defendant knowingly and forcibly confined the [victim] so as to interfere with her liberty and that he did so to facilitate the commission of the abuse.” The court further rejected his contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in the plea-bargaining proceedings. Finally, it rejected his claim that his sentences were unreasonable, disproportionate, and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. It noted that it was required to affirm his within-guidelines sentence as he failed to show any error in scoring or reliance on inaccurate information. Moreover, he failed to overcome the presumption of proportionality, and thus, his sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Affirmed.