Search & seizure; Motion to suppress evidence; Decision to not conduct a Franks v Delaware hearing; People v Martin; Sentencing; Proportionality; Effect of a within-guidelines sentence; MCL 769.34(10); People v Posey; Cruel & unusual punishment; Reliance on Solem v Helm; Harmelin v Michigan

The court held that the trial court did not err in declining to conduct a Franks hearing and in determining that defendant abandoned his motion to suppress. As to his sentencing challenges, (1) his within-guidelines sentence for meth possession was not subject to review for reasonableness, (2) he failed to overcome the presumption that it was proportionate, and (3) a proportionate sentence is not cruel or unusual. He was convicted of meth possession, FIP, possession of less than 25 grams of heroin and fentanyl, possession of less than 25 grams of cocaine, resisting and obstructing a police officer, and felony-firearm. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 9 to 20 years for meth possession, 2 to 5 years for FIP, 4 to 8 years for possession of cocaine and possession of heroin and fentanyl, and 16 to 24 months for resisting and obstructing, all to be served consecutively to the statutory 2-year term for felony-firearm. Although he “filed a motion to suppress and a demand for an evidentiary hearing under Franks, defendant repeatedly failed to make a preliminary showing that the search warrant affidavit contained any statements that were knowingly or intentionally false, or that were made with reckless disregard for the truth. [He] filed his motion to suppress but failed to include any supporting affidavit. [His] motion did not state which specific portions of the warrant affidavit were allegedly false and did not state how any allegedly false statements in the warrant affidavit were necessary for a finding of probable cause. Defendant failed to include any supporting argument with his motion or any offer of proof for his assertions.” The court concluded his “conclusory statement that the search warrant ‘included claim[ed] events which were a deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth,’ was insufficient to make a preliminary showing of falsity.” Further, the record showed “the trial court granted multiple adjournments to” give him more time to support his motion. At the plea hearing five days before trial, he “again asked the trial court to adjourn the hearing on his motion to suppress, yet he still had not provided the trial court with an affidavit in support of his motion. Because the request was made ‘on the eve of trial’ and defendant had had months to submit an offer of proof, the trial court properly denied [his] motion and considered it abandoned.” Affirmed.