Admissibility of the contents of defendant’s cell phone; Validity of the search warrant; The particularity requirement; People v Carson; Whether an error affected defendant’s substantial rights; Testimony about a statement the witness allegedly heard defendant make; Whether a mistrial was warranted; People v Lane; Prejudice; Sentencing; Modification of the judgments of sentence (JOS) to include lifetime electronic monitoring (LEM); MCR 6.429(A); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to obtain a written order consolidating defendant’s cases

While the court concluded that a search warrant was constitutionally invalid and photos of the victim (MS) found on defendant’s cell phone were erroneously admitted, it held that he did not show his substantial rights were affected by the error. It also rejected his claim that the trial court should have declared a mistrial based on a witness’s testimony. Further, the trial court “acted within its authority to sua sponte correct” his invalid sentences to impose statutorily-required LEM. Finally, his ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed. He was convicted of CSC I, II, and III in these consolidated cases. He first challenged the admission of the contents of his cell phone, based on the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. Reviewing the issue for plain error. the court found that the search warrant at issue here was “virtually indistinguishable from the” one the Michigan Supreme Court held was invalid in Carson and thus, there was no reason for it to rule differently in this case. But it determined that defendant was not entitled to relief. It noted that the “photos were fairly innocuous in nature, in that they did not depict anything overtly sexual with regard to MS. And even absent admission of the photos, there was ample evidence demonstrating defendant’s guilt. MS testified at length (and in great detail) about the multiple sexual acts between her and defendant, which began when MS was 13 years old and included sexual contact, digital penetration, and oral penetration. MS also testified that [he] had given her a vibrator belonging to his wife when she attempted to end their sexual relationship, which [he] used on her during their subsequent sexual encounters, and the vibrator was admitted as evidence. Defendant’s wife also testified that [he] admitted to her that he had given her vibrator to MS and that he had kissed and inappropriately touched MS more than once. This testimony and evidence, irrespective of the photos, was more than enough for a jury to conclude that defendant was guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, and” he failed to show “that the photos’ erroneous admission affected the outcome of his trial.” As to MS’s father’s testimony about a statement he allegedly overheard defendant make, the record indicated that any prejudice from it “was minimal and could have been further alleviated by a curative instruction to the jury if defendant had made such a request.” Affirmed.