Testimony about information obtained from the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN); MRE 803(6); Jury instructions including an assault theory for a home invasion charge; Waiver; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to raise a futile objection; Sufficiency of the evidence for first-degree home invasion & lying to a peace officer convictions; People v Wilder; MCL 750.479c(1); Sentencing; Scoring of OV 19; MCL 777.49(b); People v Smith; Whether the PSIR contained a probation officer’s subjective statements that should be stricken; MCL 771.14(2)(c); MCR 6.425(A)(1); Reasonableness challenge to a within guidelines sentence

Holding that the prosecution failed to show that the LEIN records were admissible under MRE 803(6), the court vacated defendant’s receiving and concealing conviction given that they were the only evidence establishing he possessed a stolen vehicle. However, he waived his jury instruction challenge and the court rejected his related ineffective assistance of counsel claim. It held that there was sufficient evidence to support his first-degree home invasion and lying to a peace officer convictions, and that 15 points were properly scored for OV 19. It rejected his challenge to his PSIR, and noted that his within guidelines sentences were not subject to proportionality review. But while the court affirmed all of his convictions other than the receiving and concealing conviction, and remanded for its dismissal, it instructed the trial court to consider whether vacating that conviction changed his guideline range for the other counts. If it determines that the guideline range is not changed, “then defendant’s sentence is affirmed. If, however,” it determines that vacating this conviction changes the guideline range for his other convictions, then it is to resentence him. He was convicted breaking and entering without permission, first-degree home invasion, possession of a dangerous weapon, receiving and concealing stolen property, lying to a peace officer, escape from lawful custody, and use of meth. The LEIN information “was offered to prove that the truck defendant was driving when he arrived at the” victims’ home was stolen. But the prosecution did not offer any evidence “establishing any of the foundational requirements of the business records exception: that the LEIN records were (1) ‘made at or near the time,’ (2) ‘by, or from information transmitted by,’ (3) ‘a person with knowledge’ of whether the vehicle defendant was driving was in fact stolen.” Further, there was no evidence showing that the “records were ‘kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity,’ or that ‘it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the . . . record.’” Without the records, the prosecution could not show “beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant received or concealed stolen property.” While the lying to a peace officer conviction was “a close case,” the court held that there was adequate evidence to support the jury’s finding that he violated MCL 750.479c(1).