Search & seizure; Payton v New York; Probable cause; MCL 780.653; People v Ulman; The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule; People v Goldston; People v Czuprynski; Hearsay; MRE 801(c); Prior consistent statement exception; MRE 801(d)(1)(B); People v McCray; Sentencing; People v Lockridge; Reasonableness & proportionality; People v Steanhouse; People v Dixon-Bey; Acquitted conduct; People v Beck; Court costs; MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iii)

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to suppress, by admitting hearsay, or by imposing a sentence that departed upward. He was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance less than 50 grams, and two counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance less than 50 grams. The trial court sentenced him as a fourth-offense habitual offender and as a subsequent drug offender to concurrent sentences of 10 to 60 years for each count. The sentences reflected an upward departure from the minimum guideline ranges. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay $1,000 in court costs. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that there was no probable cause showing a nexus between his alleged drug trafficking activity and his apartment. It noted that “the police recovered evidence at defendant’s apartment in objective or reasonable good-faith reliance on the search warrant.” Even if there was “a lack of probable cause to issue the search warrant, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not permit suppression of the evidence.” There was no indication that any of the averments in the detective’s affidavit were false, nor could the court “conclude that the magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role or that the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” The court also rejected his claim that the trial court erred by admitting inadmissible hearsay, noting that testimony from one witness constituted a prior consistent statement, and that testimony from another was not prejudicial. Finally, it rejected his contention that his 74-month upward departure violated the principle of proportionality and that the trial court failed to adequately justify the extent of the departures, noting the trial court departed from the minimum sentence ranges “on the basis that defendant is a recidivist drug dealer whose rehabilitation is unlikely.” Affirmed.