Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b); Relevance; Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v Sharpe; Waiver of jury instruction issue; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Plea-bargaining process; Instructional errors; Failure to object; Sentencing; Proportionality challenge to a within-guidelines sentence; Alleged “de facto life sentence”; People v Purdle (On Remand)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged other acts evidence and rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. As to his sentencing argument, it concluded that as in Purdle, his “age did not render his sentence disproportionate, considering the seriousness of the offenses, his criminal history, and his lack of remorse.” He was convicted of second-degree murder, FIP, and felony-firearm arising out of a shooting death at a drug dealer’s (W) home. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent terms of 75 to 100 years for second-degree murder and 25 to 50 years for FIP, as well as 5 years for felony-firearm, to be served consecutive to his FIP sentence. The other acts evidence concerned a prior drug case the prosecution offered to show defendant’s connection to the scene of the crimes and W. The evidence also showed “how police confirmed defendant’s phone number, linked to the scene of the murder and where [victim-C’s] body was found.” The court concluded that in addition to being admitted for reasons other than to show character or propensity, the evidence was relevant. It “showed defendant’s connection to [W], the house, and his cell phone number, which provided investigators with his locations around the time of the murder.” Further, the court held that it “was not unfairly prejudicial. The probative value of defendant’s connection to [W], the home, and his cell phone number was high. The evidence did not refer to defendant as a drug dealer or someone who engaged in criminal activity, and it was not needlessly cumulative, nor did it mislead the jury.” Lastly, while the trial court stated before trial that it would give “a limiting instruction, it did not.” But defense counsel did not request one “and, after the trial court failed to give one, expressed no objection to the jury instructions. Regardless, the prosecutor did not argue at trial that the previous case showed defendant’s guilt because of his character or any other improper purpose.” The court also found that defendant did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel related to a plea offer or instructional errors. Affirmed.