Sentencing; Scoring of OVs 7 & 19; MCL 777.37(1)(a); People v Rodriguez; MCL 777.49(c); People v Hershey; People v Smith

Concluding that OV 7 was properly scored at 50 points and OV 19 at 10 points, the court held that the trial court did not clearly err in resentencing defendant on remand to 152 to 360 months for his AWIGBH conviction. It noted that his sentencing offense did not require the use of a weapon. He “repeatedly stabbed the victim in the stomach with a sharp object and continued to kick the victim while on the ground and retreating from defendant, resulting in victim’s broken eye socket and broken nose. Defendant’s continued attack in conjunction with [his] use of a weapon to stab the victim supports by a preponderance of the evidence the trial court’s finding that [his] conduct was excessive and intended to increase the victim’s fear or anxiety.” As a result, there was no error in scoring 50 points to OV 7. As to OV 19, while he contended “the wrapped scissors on the roof were not the object used to stab the victim, the trial court could infer defendant’s interference or attempted interference with the investigation based on the evidence. The scissors wrapped in plastic wrap were located by police after defendant sent his girlfriend a letter from jail directing her to remove something from a particular area of the roof. Although no fingerprints, blood, or DNA evidence was found on the scissors, police suspected that the scissors were cleaned after they found plastic wrap inside the home near a bottle of rubbing alcohol and a towel. From this evidence, and considering that defendant provides no alternative explanation as to why he sent the letter from the jail or why scissors wrapped in plastic were found on the roof, the trial court could reasonably infer that [he] intended to interfere with the investigation by hiding the scissors that he used to stab the victim and instructing his girlfriend to remove the scissors from that hiding spot.” The court also concluded that “it was reasonable for the trial court to infer from the evidence that defendant acted to evade the administration of justice when he removed blood from his shoes.” Affirmed.