Search & seizure; Consent; People v Rodriguez; Third-party consent; People v Brown; Voluntariness; People v Farrow; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to move to suppress; People v Trakhtenberg; Sentencing; OV 4 scoring; MCL 777.34(1)(a); People v Lampe

The court held that defendant failed to show a Fourth Amendment violation, that counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek suppression of the firearm, and that the trial court properly assessed 10 points for OV 4. Defendant was convicted of armed robbery and felony-firearm after a traffic incident escalated, and the victims testified that defendant pointed a gun, struck one victim with it, took money and necklaces, and later threw the victim’s phone into the street. On appeal, the court first held that the warrantless search of defendant’s residence was valid because defendant’s fiancée lived there and gave consent to search. Although the police detained defendant and another occupant and ordered everyone out of the home, the court found “little evidence that police actions rendered her consent involuntary.” It emphasized that she “accompanied officers throughout the search,” and had “ample opportunity to limit or revoke her consent but did not do so.” Because the search was supported by valid consent, the court found it unnecessary to decide whether it also qualified as a protective sweep. The court next held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress the gun because the motion “would have failed,” and “even without the firearm, the victims’ testimony independently established defendant’s guilt.” Finally, the court held that OV 4 was properly scored because one victim “sought treatment for his ‘mental state,’ including therapy,” experienced paranoia, and was “constantly looking over his shoulders,” while the other reported a PTSD diagnosis and treatment. Affirmed.