Sufficiency of the evidence for an assault by strangulation conviction; MCL 750.84; Sentencing; Scoring of OVs 3, 4, 10, & 13; MCL 777.33(1)(e); “Bodily injury”; MCL 777.34(1)(a) & (2); MCL 777.40(1)(b); “Exploit”; “Domestic relationship”; “Vulnerability”; MCL 777.43(1)(b) & (2)(a)

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s assault by strangulation conviction and that OVs 3, 4, 10, and 13 were properly scored, the court affirmed his conviction and his sentence. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 108 to 240 months. The victim testified that he “choked and strangled her to the extent that she could not breathe. The prosecution presented” photos of her injuries, which an expert (R) testified “were consistent with the victim’s testimony and with strangulation. The prosecution also presented the text message that reflected defendant’s admission that he choked and hit” her, as well as a witness’s testimony that defendant showed how he had choked her. As to sentencing, the court first held that 5 points were properly assessed for OV 3. “The victim testified that she had a sore throat after a few of the strangulations,” and photos showed bruising around her ear “and an approximately three-inch scratch on” her leg. R opined that the “injuries were consistent with defendant strangling and hitting the victim as the victim (and defendant) described.” The court also upheld the 10-point score for OV 4. The victim testified at the sentencing hearing “that she had nightmares and flashbacks, was scared to walk by herself, and received professional treatment. Feelings of being hurt and unsafe are enough to qualify as serious psychological injuries.” It concluded that 10 points were also properly scored for OV 10, noting the “trial court could have reasonably determined that defendant and the victim were in a domestic relationship.” While she was still married to another man, she was living with defendant, whom she told law enforcement she had been dating for about a month. The evidence also suggested that she “was readily susceptible to persuasion or temptation and that defendant exploited her drug addiction and circumstances.” She returned to his “home after leaving the hospital because she was having drug withdrawals and defendant could supply her drugs.” He then continued abusing her. Finally, the court upheld the 25-point score for OV 13, concluding that “a preponderance of the evidence supported the trial court’s determination that defendant committed three or more crimes against a person in a five-year period.”