Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to a sexual assault nurse examiner’s (SANE) testimony; People v Thorpe; People v Harbison; Failure to demand discovery about proposed testimony; MCR 6.201(A)(1) & (3); Advice as to whether to accept a plea deal; Denial of an evidentiary hearing; Factual predicate for an ineffective assistance claim; Sentencing; Reasonableness; Presumptive proportionality of within-guidelines sentences; People v Bowling

The court rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims and held that he failed to show the unusual circumstances required “to render his presumptively proportionate sentence disproportionate.” Thus, it affirmed his CSC I and felony-firearm convictions and his sentences, as a fourth-offense habitual offender, of 60 to 100 years for each CSC I conviction and 2 years for each felony-firearm conviction. He first argued that his trial “counsel was ineffective for not objecting to testimony from” the SANE (K) who examined victim-DE. He also asserted that K “was allowed to vouch for DE’s credibility by emphasizing to the jury that DE was a victim of sexual assault.” The court disagreed, concluding that he failed to show that K’s “testimony was objectionable. Her comments were about treating sexual assault victims in general. The comments did not directly address DE’s claims or credibility. More importantly, upon further questioning, [K] made it clear that she could not determine if there was consensual sex or a sexual assault in this case from conducting her examination. She treated DE (and other patients) on the basis of the history provided. Even if counsel had objected, the outcome would not have changed because [K’s] comments did not address DE’s credibility.” The court further determined, among other things, that K did not offer testimony outside the scope of her expertise and that defendant failed to show “his counsel was ineffective for not properly advising him on whether to accept a plea deal.” In addition, it found “that the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion for an evidentiary hearing.” As to his sentencing challenge, given “the escalating seriousness of defendant’s crimes, his poor record of rehabilitation, and the seriousness of the offenses” here, which involved vulnerable victims, the court declined to require that he be resentenced.