Other acts evidence; Mistrial; Great weight of the evidence; Sufficiency of the evidence; Mentally incapacitated; Sentencing; Scoring of OVs 8 & 10; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to the introduction of a 2004 conviction; Failure to move for a mistrial; Failure to object to the scoring of the OVs; Proportionality

The court held that the probative value of a relative’s testimony as to “the 2004 assault weighs in favor of admission, and the other acts evidence from 2004 was properly admitted.” Also, defendant-Laundry proffered “nothing to suggest that a mistrial was manifestly necessary.” Further, given “the victim’s testimony, Laundry’s convictions were not against the great weight of the evidence.” Additionally, the court held that “the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict finding him guilty of” CSC III and IV. It found that the trial court did not err when it assessed 15 points for OV 8 and 10. And it “correctly denied a new trial based on ineffective assistance.” Finally, Laundry had “not overcome the presumption of proportionality for his within-guidelines sentence.” Defendant was “on parole for a sexual assault of an adult with an intellectual disability when he sexually assaulted the same person.” A jury found him guilty of CSC III and IV. He was sentenced to 217 months to 30 years for CSC III and to 34 months to 4 years for CSC IV, “with no credit for time served and consecutive to the sentence for which he was on parole.” He challenged, among other things, the admission of the other acts evidence from 2004. The court held that the “2004 assault was a similar act of exploitation against a vulnerable victim, and it demonstrated Laundry’s pattern of sexually assaulting victims who were not capable of consenting or resisting.” Laundry argued “that his incarceration after the 2004 assault should demonstrate probable rehabilitation, but his actual history shows the opposite—in 2012, he pleaded guilty to” CSC III. Thus, “the probative value of the relative’s testimony regarding the 2004 assault weighs in favor of admission, and the other acts evidence from 2004 was properly admitted.” Affirmed.