Sufficiency of the evidence for a conspiracy to commit armed robbery conviction; People v Seewald; People v Chambers; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 3; MCL 777.33(1)(a); “Results from”; People v Laidler; Scoring of OV 1; MCL 777.31(1)(a) & (2)(b); People v McGraw; People v Robinson (Unpub); People v Libbett; Allowing an additional prosecution witness; MCL 767.40a; Effect of a prosecutor’s negligence; People v Callon

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conspiracy to commit armed robbery conviction. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a late-added prosecution witness (H) to testify or in scoring 100 points for OV 3 and 25 points for OV 1. Thus, the court affirmed his conviction and his 10 to 25-year sentence. The “evidence was sufficient to show that defendant and” a woman (C) entered into an agreement to rob the victim (P) “of pills and money. Moreover, given the fact that defendant informed [C] that [P] had been robbed before and possessed a gun, and the fact that [C] subsequently asked others about using a gun in the robbery, shows that the agreement between defendant and [C] encompassed the use of force or violence with a gun during the robbery. These facts, taken together, satisfy the elements of conspiracy under MCL 750.157a and armed robbery under MCL 750.529[.]” As to OV 3, the trial court did not err in scoring it “at 100 points because the evidence was sufficient to show factual causation. In particular, the trial testimony shows that defendant first floated the idea of robbing” P to C and they “entered into a conspiracy to commit an armed robbery of [P]. After that agreement, [C] persuaded others to actually commit that armed robbery, which resulted in [P’s] death from” being shot. It reasonably followed “that but for the conspiracy between defendant and [C], the armed robbery and death would not have occurred.” As to OV 1, the court noted that reducing it from 25 points to 0 “would not affect the calculated guidelines range, so for this reason alone, defendant” was not entitled to relief. In addition, his arguments lacked merit. The “trial court was permitted to consider the fact that [P] was shot during the armed robbery when scoring OV 1 without running afoul of the McGraw principle or MCL 777.31 itself.” Further, the 25-point score was “appropriate under the circumstances of this case regardless of how OV 1 was scored for the other offenders.” Finally, the prosecution told “the trial court that it ‘secured’ or ‘found’ [H] some weeks before trial, which explained” H’s absence from “its original witness list. This representation, which generally constitutes good cause for the purposes of MCL 767.40a(4), was not disputed by defense counsel or the trial court.” Also, defendant could not show prejudice.