Prosecutorial error; Vouching for the victim’s credibility & calling defendant a liar during closing argument; Sentencing; Habitual offender enhancement; MCL 769.12

Concluding that no plain error occurred as to prosecutorial error and defendant was not entitled to resentencing, the court affirmed. He was convicted of CSC I and sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent terms of 25 to 50 years. Defendant first contended “that he was denied his right to a fair trial because the prosecutor improperly vouched for the victim’s credibility and asserted that defendant was a liar during closing argument.” The record did not support his “claim that the prosecutor committed error during its closing argument. The prosecutor did not claim special insight into the victim’s or defendant’s credibility. Rather, he argued that the victim and other prosecution witnesses did not ‘have a special interest in the outcome of this case, other than the fact that they are just here and they’ve been told to tell the truth.’” He further claimed “that the victim was motivated to tell the truth to protect herself, while defendant, facing serious consequences, had an incentive to lie. Those arguments responded to the defense theory that the victim fabricated the allegations and were permissible.” Next, the court did not need “address the merits of defendant’s OV challenges because any error would be harmless.” The trial court sentenced him to 25 to 50 years for both CSC I convictions. “For the conviction under MCL 750.520b(1)(a), the trial court was required to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years under MCL 750.520b(2)(b). Additionally, the habitual offender statute, MCL 769.12, mandates a 25-year minimum for a defendant with at least three prior felony convictions—one of which is a ‘listed prior felony’—who is subsequently convicted of a serious crime. Because defendant was a fourth-offense habitual offender with a prior conviction of first-degree home invasion under MCL 750.110a—a listed prior felony—the trial court was required to impose a minimum sentence of 25 years for each” CSC I conviction. The court held that because “the trial court lacked discretion to impose a lower minimum sentence, any error in scoring the OVs would be harmless.” It found that even if the guidelines range had changed, the trial “court could not have imposed a lesser sentence.”