Sufficiency of the evidence for CSC I convictions under MCL 750.520b(1)(f); “Force or coercion”; Lack of corroboration; MCL 750.520h; Sentencing; Reasonableness & proportionality; Effect of a within-guidelines sentence; People v Posey; Cruel or unusual punishment; People v Bullock

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s CSC I convictions under MCL 750.520b(1)(f) and rejecting his sentencing challenges, the court affirmed. He was sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender to concurrent terms of 18 to 25 years, within his recommended guidelines range. He argued that there was insufficient evidence that the victim (BS) “was forced or coerced to engage in sex with” him. She testified that he “attacked her and sexually assaulted her in the back room of [a house] where she was waiting for drugs. [She] explained that defendant penetrated her vaginally and anally despite her protests. To do so, BS testified that [he] held her down by her wrists and pinned her legs down with his knees. Therefore, BS adequately described acts involving the use of force to accomplish sexual penetration.” Defendant appeared to contend “that any evidence of force or coercion was lacking because, according to [him], any sexual conduct was consensual. A key part of [his] testimony was that he appeared to describe only vaginally, not anally, penetrating BS; however, both the physical examination and the DNA results supported BS’s version of events that [he] penetrated her both vaginally and anally. If the jury found that BS’s testimony was credible, it could then find that defendant used force to have sex with [her], thereby rejecting [his] claim that it was consensual.” Further, to the extent he asserted “the evidence was insufficient because there was no corroboration of BS’s testimony,” pursuant to MCL 750.520h, a victim’s testimony “need not be corroborated in prosecutions under MCL 750.520b.” While there was evidence that went to BS’s credibility, including that she “previously made false allegations against her husband and falsely admitted to a crime that someone else committed[,]” it was for the jury to weigh that evidence. The court also rejected defendant’s claims that his sentences were unreasonable and disproportionate, and amounted to cruel and/or unusual punishment. As to the former, he did not present “any unusual circumstances” that led the court “to conclude that his presumptively proportionate sentences are disproportionate.” As to the latter, he could not “meet his burden in proving that his sentences amount to cruel or unusual punishment under Bullock.” Further, because they were proportionate, they were “not cruel or unusual.”