Sufficiency of the evidence; Second-degree murder; MCL 750.317; People v Goecke; Identity; Voluntary manslaughter instruction; MCL 750.321; People v Mendoza; Sentencing guidelines; OV scoring; MCL 777.35; People v Calloway; Within-guidelines proportionality; Acquitted-conduct limits; MCL 769.34; People v Beck

The court held that defendant’s convictions and within-guidelines sentences for second-degree murder and related firearm offenses were proper and therefore affirmed. The case arose from defendant’s shooting of the victim inside a store after defendant entered wearing a mask and distinctive clothing, walked toward the door, then turned and opened fire. The jury convicted him of second-degree murder and the related firearm offenses, and the trial court imposed a minimum term of 65 years for murder plus a consecutive 5-year felony-firearm sentence. On appeal, the court held that ample circumstantial evidence supported identity because the prosecution presented testimony that defendant admitted the shooting, routinely used a white SUV like the one seen fleeing, wore a hat and jacket matching the shooter, and walked with a similar limp, and “a reasonable jury could use the circumstantial evidence introduced at trial to find defendant was the shooter in the video and that he was guilty of second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court also found that no rational view of the evidence supported voluntary manslaughter, emphasizing that witness-T’s account that defendant was “scared” did not establish “adequate provocation” or a lack of cooling time and that “there was nothing in the record to support a voluntary-manslaughter conviction.” It further held that OV 5 and OV 9 were properly scored given evidence of serious psychological injury to family members and at least 10 people in the store, that the presumption of proportionality for a within-guidelines sentence was not rebutted where defendant was in his thirties and had a lengthy record, and that the trial court honored the jury’s verdict so its comments about first-degree murder did not violate Beck because it “sentence[d] defendant within the guidelines range for second-degree murder[.]”