Sentencing; Scoring of 50 points for PRV 1 & 25 points for OVs 1 & 3; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failing to provide mitigating evidence at sentencing

In these consolidated appeals, the court held that the trial court did not clearly err by assessing 50 points for PRV 1, and 25 points for OVs 1 and 3. Also, defendant did not receive the ineffective assistance of counsel. He pled guilty to armed robbery, first-degree home invasion, unlawful imprisonment, AWIGBH, and felony-firearm. He argued “the trial court erroneously assessing 50 points for OV 1 because his two previous felonies were not adult convictions, but juvenile adjudications. His previous armed robbery and first-degree home invasion convictions “from 2013 were the previous high-severity felonies the trial court relied on to assess 50 points for PRV 1.” They carried “the same liabilities as any other adult conviction.” Thus, the trial court properly considered them as previous high-severity felony convictions, and the trial court did not err by assessing 50 points for PRV 1. Defendant also argued the trial court erroneously assessed 25 points for OV 1 because the prosecutor did not show his use of a weapon was aggravated. Though the evidence showed he "did not possess a weapon during the armed robbery and despite the fact that neither [F or M] were convicted of armed robbery or scored for OV 1 at the time of defendant’s sentencing, the trial court did not err by assessing 25 points for OV 1. The sentencing guidelines do not require that the other offenders in MCL 777.31(2)(b) be identified, charged, and convicted before any other offenders may be assessed points under OV 1.” The court found the fact that “defendant was the first offender identified, charged, and convicted of the armed robbery" was irrelevant for the purposes of scoring OV 1. Between his “testimony and the PSIR, there was a preponderance of evidence to find that [M] discharged a firearm at a human being in the course of the armed robbery. OV 1 requires all offenders who participated in the crime to receive the same score, without regard to whether the offenders were prosecuted or convicted. The trial court properly determined that a firearm was discharged at a human being in a multiple offender case." Thus, the trial court did not err by assessing 25 points for OV 1. Lastly, he argued “the trial court erroneously assessed 25 points for OV 3 because the PSIR did not demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that a life threatening or permanent incapacitating injury occurred to a victim.” Defendant contested whether D’s injuries “were life threatening or permanent. At his plea hearing, defendant did not admit to the occurrence of any injury. There were no medical records nor a victim-impact statement introduced at sentencing to establish that a life threatening or permanent injury occurred. The only record evidence" that even remotely pertained to the victim’s injuries was the PSIR. Defendant contended, “however, the PSIR alone does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that a life threatening or permanent incapacitating injury occurred to” D. From the evidence, “the trial court was permitted to infer that the bullet’s location caused paralysis, a life threatening or permanently incapacitating injury.” Affirmed.