Sufficiency of the evidence; CSC I involving a person aged 17 or older engaging in sexual penetration with a person under the age of 13; MCL 750.520b(1)(a) & (2)(b); “Sexual penetration”; MCL 750.520a(r); CSC II involving a person aged 17 or older engaging in sexual contact with a person under the age of 13; MCL 750.520c(1)(a) & (2)(b); “Sexual contact”; MCL 750.520a(q); Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Sabin (On Second Remand); Trial strategy; People v. Horn; Failure to make a futile objection; People v. Ericksen; Prejudice; People v. Ackley; People v. Carines; Harmless error; People v. Rodriguez; Credibility; People v. Dobek; Relevance; MRE 401 & 402; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v. Feezel; Hearsay; MRE 801(c); Statements made for the purpose of medical treatment; MRE 803(4); People v. Mahone; Reliability; People v. Meeboer; Sentencing; MCL 769.34(10); People v. Lockridge; People v. Schrauben; People v. Anderson; Clerical error

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s CSC and other convictions, that the admission of certain evidence was not erroneous, and that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object. It also rejected his sentencing challenge. He was convicted of CSC I, CSC II, gross indecency, and indecent exposure for sexually molesting his daughter when she was approximately three to seven years old. The trial court sentenced him as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 365 days in jail for indecent exposure and 8 concurrent terms of 47½ to 75 years in prison for the other convictions. On appeal, the court rejected his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support some of his CSC convictions. As to CSC I, it noted that “at least two instances of penile-vaginal and at least two instances of penile-anal penetration were proven.” As to CSC II, it noted there were “at least two sexual touchings of [the victim’s] thighs with defendant’s penis.” The court also rejected his claim that the admission of a detective’s testimony about defendant’s credibility during a police interview was reversible error, and that his attorney was ineffective for failing to object. The “jury heard that defendant himself admitted to being only partially truthful” with the officer, and there was “no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have differed if counsel had objected, . . . as the jury already heard [his] admission that he was not being entirely truthful.” It next rejected his contention that evidence of pornography in his home was improperly admitted, noting that a family friend’s testimony was cumulative to the testimony of the victim’s mother and thus, “no prejudice resulted from admission of the hearsay.” The court further rejected his argument that testimony by four witnesses about out-of-court statements made by the victim were inadmissible hearsay, and that the error was not harmless. In addition, the court rejected all of his related claims that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object. Finally, his claim that his within guidelines sentences were unreasonable failed, and his clerical error claim was meritless. Affirmed.