Sufficiency of the evidence; Maintaining a drug vehicle; MCL 333.7405(1)(d); People v Griffin; “Keep or maintain”; People v Thompson; Prosecutorial error; Vouching; People v Bahoda; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to raise a futile objection; Consecutive sentencing; MCL 333.7401; Lack of remorse; People v Carlson; Scoring of OV 14; MCL 777.44; People v Rhodes; Scoring of OV 19; MCL 777.49; Operating a motor vehicle while license suspended, revoked, or denied (OWLS); Sport utility vehicle (SUV); Confidential informant (CI)

Holding that there were no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions and sentences. He was convicted of conspiracy to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine, OWLS, delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine (second offense), possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of heroin (second offense), possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine (second offense), maintaining a drug vehicle, and bringing a controlled substance into a jail facility. The trial court sentenced him to 93 days in jail for the OWLS conviction. It also sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 114 months to 40 years for “(a) one conviction of possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of heroin, second offense; (b) the conviction of possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine, second offense; (c) each conviction of conspiracy to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine; and (d) one of the convictions of delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine, second offense.” It sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 114 months to 15 years for each maintaining a drug vehicle conviction, and to 34 months to 40 years for bringing a controlled substance into a jail facility. It imposed a consecutive term of 29 months to 40 years for the second conviction of delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine, second offense. On appeal, the court rejected his argument there was insufficient evidence to convict him of maintaining a drug vehicle, noting the evidence “would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that defendant had engaged in continued use of the SUV for the purpose of selling controlled substances.” It also rejected his claim the prosecution erred by repeatedly telling the jury during its rebuttal closing argument that the CI was truthful and that his testimony could be trusted. “The prosecution’s statements, when viewed in context, do not constitute prosecutorial error because they were made in response to defense counsel’s argument and theory of the case—that the CI was not a credible witness.” And trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the comments. Finally, as to his challenge to the imposition of a consecutive sentence, it “was within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes under the circumstances of this case.” The trial court did not improperly consider his “refusal to admit guilt when it imposed the consecutive sentence.” And it did not incorrectly assess 10 points for OV 14 and 25 points for OV 19 as the evidence showed he was a leader in a multiple offender situation and that he threatened the security of a penal institution.