Ineffective assistance of counsel; Trial strategy; Prejudice; Prosecutorial error; Improper vouching; People v Meissner; Sentencing; Waiver; Scoring of PRV 5 (prior misdemeanor convictions or juvenile adjudications); MCL 777.55(1); Harmless error; Scoring of OV 8 (victim asportation or captivity); MCL 777.38(1); People v Chelmicki; Scoring of OV 10 (exploitation of a vulnerable victim); “Predatory conduct”; MCL 777.40(1)(a); People v Kosik; Lifetime registration under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA); Cruel & unusual punishment; People v Kiczenski; Lifetime electronic monitoring (LEM); Unreasonable search; People v Hallak

Finding no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions and sentences. He was convicted of CSC II for sexually abusing the victim when she was approximately six or seven years old. He was sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender to 22½ years. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, noting he failed to “overcome the presumption that counsel’s decision not to request another adjournment was sound trial strategy.” Nor did he show prejudice. The court also rejected his claim that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the victim’s and a detective’s credibility, noting the prosecutor simply “argued that the detective had no motive to lie and that there was no reason to doubt the victim’s credibility. Those arguments responded to the defense theory that the victim fabricated the sexual abuse and were permissible.” It next rejected his sentencing challenges. First, although PRV 5 should “have been assessed at five points . . . and the trial court erred in scoring 10” points, the error did “not change the applicable guidelines range, and” was therefore harmless. As to OV 8, “defendant called the victim into his bedroom before committing the assault, removing her from an area where others might observe them to a more secluded and dangerous” setting, which “supports the 15-point score for OV 8.” As to OV 10, his conduct supported a finding that he “engaged in calculated, preoffense behavior aimed at exploiting the child’s vulnerability to facilitate sexual victimization.” Regarding his sentence to lifetime registration under the SORA, this did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Kiczenski emphasized the “SORA’s connection to a nonpunitive purpose: ‘identifying potentially recidivist sex offenders and alerting the public’ in the interest of public safety.” It also noted that the “SORA’s ‘restrictions are not excessive when applied to the public safety concerns the statute addresses with respect to sex offenders.’” This rationale “applies equally to defendant’s CSC II conviction, which,” like CSC I “involves a sexual offense committed against a ‘young and vulnerable’ victim.” Finally, the LEM requirement was neither cruel and unusual nor an unreasonable search.