Sufficiency of the evidence; Duress; People v Lemons; Principle that a threat of future injury is not sufficient to establish duress; People v Hubbard; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 3; Life threatening or permanent incapacitating injury; MCL 777.33(1)(c); Whether the victim incurred a “bodily injury requiring medical treatment”; MCL 777.33(1)(d); MCL 777.33(3); People v Rosa; Scoring of OV 7 (aggravated physical abuse); MCL 777.37(1)(a); People v Hardy; Scoring of OV 10 (vulnerable victim); “Predatory conduct”; MCL 777.40(1)(a) & (3)(a); People v Cannon; Judicial bias; The trial court’s examination of witnesses; People v McDonald; Voir dire; People v Tyburski; Prosecutorial misconduct; Ineffective assistance

Finding that defendant’s convictions were proper, but that the trial court erred in scoring OVs 3, 7, and 10, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. He was convicted of AWIGBH, assault of a prison employee, and prisoner in possession of a weapon, for attacking a corrections officer (W) with a padlock tied to a cord. The trial court sentenced him as a fourth habitual offender to concurrent terms of 12 to 30 years for AWIGBH and 6 to 20 for each of the other convictions. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because the prosecution failed to rebut evidence that his crimes were excused by the defense of duress. “[D]efendant’s evidence, even if the jury found it credible, did not establish an imminent threat to his physical well-being. The threat of future injury is insufficient to establish duress.” In addition, “the prosecution presented evidence that defendant had failed to use the prison’s reporting system to report” the officer’s alleged threats. However, the court agreed with defendant that the trial court erroneously scored OVs 3, 7, and 10. As to OV 3, “no evidence was presented that the injury [W] received was life-threatening.” Further, defendant’s “conduct did not rise to the level of cruelty required to assess points for OV 7.” And as to OV 10, “there was no evidence that defendant stalked [W] or lay in wait for the ideal moment to strike.” The court next rejected his claim that the trial court displayed bias against him and in favor of the prosecution when it questioned witnesses during trial. The trial “court asked a few clarifying questions that were primarily about prison operations and addressed both parties in its discussions of an evidentiary matter while the jury was absent.” It also “instructed the jury that its questions should not be taken to reflect its opinion on the evidence.” The court additionally rejected his contention that the trial court erred in conducting voir dire, noting its “comments were relatively benign and, if anything, presented a balanced view of prison inmates as consisting of both good and bad people.” It further rejected his claim of prosecutorial misconduct, noting that, “[r]ead in context, the prosecution’s questions and comments [did] not rise to the level of reversible error.” It also found each of his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel meritless.