Ineffective assistance of counsel; Drug sniff; People v Kavanaugh; Sufficiency of the evidence; Intent to deliver meth; People v Fetterley; Corpus delicti; Defendant’s statements; People v Konrad; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 14; Leadership role; People v Earl; Proportionality; Within-guidelines sentence; People v Posey

The court held that (1) defense counsel was not ineffective, (2) the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of possession with intent to deliver meth, (3) the corpus delicti rule did not bar admission of defendant’s statements, and (4) defendant’s sentence was properly scored and proportionate. The police stopped defendant’s truck after learning through LEIN that its registration was expired and it lacked valid insurance. After the drug dog alerted, officers found meth on the passenger-side floor, additional meth in his girlfriend’s underwear, and scales with residue in the truck and apartment. On appeal, the court held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek suppression because Deputy P “had probable cause to believe that the vehicle’s owner had violated traffic laws and to detain the vehicle to address the violation,” there was “no indication that the drug sniff prolonged the traffic stop,” and the dog’s alert “provided probable cause to search every part of the vehicle that might have contained contraband.” The court next held that the evidence of intent to deliver was sufficient because “[p]roof of actual delivery is not required,” the element of intent “to deliver can be inferred from the quantity of the controlled substance in the defendant’s possession and from the way in which the controlled substance is packaged,” and defendant admitted he was on his way to sell meth while his girlfriend testified that she was helping him sell drugs. The court also held that the corpus delicti rule did not bar Detective E’s testimony because defendant “was not charged with crimes related to his statements about his history of buying and selling large amounts” of meth and “there was ample independent evidence that the meth[] for which defendant was charged existed and was possessed by someone.” Finally, the court held that OV 14 was properly scored because the trial court could infer that defendant “was the driving force behind his and” his girlfriend’s possession and sale of meth, and it held that defendant’s within-guidelines sentence was presumptively proportionate and that he had not rebutted that presumption. Affirmed.