Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b); People v Denson; Sufficiency of the evidence for a breaking & entering (B&E) a building with intent to commit larceny conviction; People v Toole; Restitution; People v Fawaz; The Crime Victim’s Rights Act; Sentencing; Scoring of PRVs 1 & 5 & OVs 13 & 16; Within-guidelines sentence; Ineffective assistance of counsel

While the court concluded the trial court abused its discretion in admitting some of the challenged other acts evidence, it held that defendant was not entitled to appellate relief on this basis. It also held that there was sufficient evidence to support his B&E a building with intent to commit larceny conviction. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding restitution, and it did not err in scoring 75 points for PRV 1 and 20 points for PRV 5, or 5 points for OV 16. While “it did plainly err in scoring” 10 points for OV 13 instead of 5, defendant was not entitled to relief as his guidelines range did not change. Finally, the court rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Thus, it affirmed his conviction and his sentence, as a habitual offender, fourth offense, to 60 months to 30 years. The case arose from coin-operated laundry facilities in an apartment complex (the Parkview) being broken into. As to defendant’s challenge to the admission of other acts evidence, the court held “that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of the other strikingly similar offenses pertaining to the damage to laundry and coin machines to steal money. However, the strikingly similar requirement was lacking with regard to the entry into a community room to steal a large screen television and entry into the utility room of a car wash.” While the court concluded “the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the non-strikingly similar other-acts evidence to be admitted,” it could not “conclude that the erroneous admission constituted outcome-determinative error.” The owner of the apartment complex (S) “had videotape depicting defendant in the laundry room removing coins from the dryer. Defendant admitted he was on the video; however, [he] maintained that the video, which lacked a date and time stamp, was from a 2020 incident when he broke into the Parkview’s laundry machines to support his drug habit. [He] further asserted that he entered into a plea deal that essentially exempted him from prosecution for the 2020 breaking and entering of Parkview. Yet, there was no record evidence that [S] filed a police report in 2020 alleging a break-in and theft of coins from his property, no evidence that [S] had functioning surveillance video cameras at that time, and no evidence of a plea deal that prevented the prosecution from pursuing charges arising from the criminal conduct that occurred at Parkview.”