Prearrest delay; Actual & substantial prejudice; People v Patton; The 180-day-rule; MCL 780.131(1); MCL 780.133; People v Lown; Speedy trial; People v McLaughlin; Exclusion of evidence; Authentication; MRE 901; Mitchell v Kalamazoo Anesthesiology, PC; Self-authentication; MRE 902; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Prejudice; Sentencing; Reasonableness & proportionality; Scoring of OV 4 (serious psychological injury); MCL 777.34(1)(a); Scoring of OV 10 (exploitation/predatory conduct); MCL 777.40(1)(a) & (3); People v Cannon; Judgment of sentence (JOS); Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC)

Finding no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions and sentence, but remanded for the ministerial task of correcting the JOS. He was convicted of CSC I for sexually abusing the young victim and sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 456 to 900 months. On appeal, the court first held that his pre-arrest delay did not constitute a violation of his due process rights, finding he failed to show “he experienced substantial prejudice or that the delay had a significant adverse impact on his case, or that the delay ‘meaningfully impair[ed] [his] ability to defend against the charge in such a manner that the outcome of the proceedings was likely affected.’” As to the denial of his motion to dismiss based on an alleged violation of the 180-day rule, the court noted that had the prosecution expedited the trial without adjudicating numerous motions he filed, “significant due-process issues would have arisen.” The court next found that his right to a speedy trial was not violated as he failed to show “the reasons for the delay were mostly or primarily attributable to the” prosecution, or that he was prejudiced. The court further held that the trial court did not err by refusing to allow the introduction of a prisoner movement document from the MDOC, and that his trial attorney was not ineffective assistance for failing to properly authenticate the document. “Defendant does not claim that any of the relevant requirements for self-authentication under MRE 902 were satisfied, and he has not provided any legal authority supporting his assertion that a public record may somehow be self-authenticated in another manner.” And because he “cannot demonstrate the necessary prejudice, he has not shown that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.” The court also found that the trial court did not err in scoring OVs 4 and 10, concluding: (1) the 10-point score for OV 4 was “supported by substantial evidence in the record reflecting a serious psychological injury”; and (2) as to OV 10, “all three prongs of the Cannon test were met.” Finally, the court determined defendant’s argument that he “improperly received a ‘de facto’ life sentence [did] not establish that his within-guidelines sentence was disproportionate.”