Sufficiency of the evidence; FIP & felony-firearm; Great weight of the evidence; Sentencing; Scoring of 10 points for OV 19; Judicial fact-finding

The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to sustain defendant’s FIP and felony-firearm convictions and that his convictions were not against the great weight of the evidence. It also found “that the facts used by the trial court arguably were insufficient to assess 10 points for OV 19. However, the trial court ultimately reached the correct result.” He was sentenced to 1 to 7½ years for FIP, to run consecutively to 2 years for his felony-firearm conviction. Defendant first argued “that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions and, relatedly, his convictions were against the great weight of the evidence.” The court held that viewed “in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence, and reasonable inferences arising from it, were sufficient to enable the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was in possession of a firearm.” Officer R “testified that when the officers approached the scene, he observed defendant with ‘a clear print’ of a firearm, and Officer [G] testified that he observed both the firearm imprint and the firearm itself. This testimony alone was legally sufficient to sustain his convictions.” Further, Officer G “observed what was subsequently determined to be a firearm magazine fall from defendant as he was fleeing the scene, and the firearm that was found under the car did not have a magazine. And, when defendant was apprehended, he did not have a firearm on his person, but the firearm that was found under the car was along the route that he ran when attempting to flee. Taken together, the most logical explanation is that defendant had a firearm when he was first observed by the police but deposited the firearm under the car when he was attempting to flee the police.” As to the great weight of the evidence, defendant observed “that the prosecution did not introduce fingerprint or DNA evidence linking him to the firearm, and multiple people being in the vicinity resulted in a ‘strong likelihood that someone other than’ defendant possessed the firearm.” The court held the “evidence was more than sufficient to sustain his convictions. Further, while there were other people in the vicinity at the time, defendant testified that he was unaware of anyone else present possessing a firearm.” Thus, given the circumstances of the case, there was “no reason to assume that the firearm at issue was possessed by anyone other than defendant.” He also asserted that the officers’ “testimony was full of ‘material inconsistencies,’ and it [was] ‘simply not credible that the officers could have seen anything given that it was dark.’ While [their] testimony regarding lighting was inconsistent, the jury watched the body-camera footage and found [their] testimony regarding their visibility to be credible.” Finally, defendant suggested “that the jury verdict was inconsistent, as the jury acquitted him of [CCW] but convicted him of” FIP and felony-firearm. The “testimony, if believed by the jury, would establish that defendant [was] not guilty of” CCW but was guilty of FIP and felony-firearm. Affirmed.