Sufficiency of the evidence; Accosting a minor; MCL 750.145a; “Grooming”; People v Kowalski; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to move for a directed verdict; People v Riley; Failure to make a futile objection; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 10; “Exploitation of a vulnerable victim”; MCL 777.40(1); “Predatory conduct”; MCL 777.40(1)(a) & (3)(a); Scoring of OV 19; Interference with the administration of justice; MCL 777.49(c); Comparing People v Steele; Judgment of sentence (JOS)

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction under MCL 750.145a, that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and that there were no errors in sentencing. Thus, it affirmed his conviction and sentence, but remanded for the ministerial task of correcting his JOS. Defendant, who was 34 at the time, was convicted of accosting a child for immoral purposes, arising out of a secret relationship with the victim, his friends’ 12-year-old daughter. The trial court sentenced him to 20 to 48 months, with credit for time served. On appeal, the court rejected his argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence, finding there was “ample evidence for the trial court to find [he] was grooming the victim, i.e., gaining her trust and affection, and actively inducing or encouraging her to eventually engage in an immoral or sexual act with him.” It noted the victim was “in a vulnerable and depressed state, and defendant used the victim’s trust to manipulate and encourage her into a false relationship. This required only the general intent to encourage the victim, which the evidence” supported. Although he went “to great lengths to argue that he never intended to engage in any sexual conduct with the victim . . . his testimony was a matter of credibility for the trier of fact to decide,” and the court would not disturb such a finding. It also rejected his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a directed verdict. “[G]iven that the evidence amply supported each element of the offense, defendant has failed to overcome the high burden of showing that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a directed verdict. Moreover, in light of the overwhelming evidence, defendant has failed to show a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.” Finally, the court rejected his contention that the trial court improperly assessed 15 points for OV 10 and 10 points for OV 19. As to OV 10, there was “predatory grooming activity in which defendant was preparing the victim for the subsequent offense of encouraging the victim to engage in immoral acts.” As to OV 19, “after the investigation began, defendant used a different phone, told the victim to store his phone number under a different name, and told the victim to delete their messages.” He also told her “they needed to ‘be discreet,’ to ‘play it safe,’ and to meet in secret at a nearby park. This conduct is analogous to the defendant’s conduct in Steele and the” OV 19 score was proper.