Ineffective assistance of counsel; Plea bargaining; People v Douglas; Sentencing guidelines estimate; CSC III; MCL 750.520d(1)(b); OV 3; Bodily injury requiring medical treatment; MCL 777.33(1)(d); People v Lampe; Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA); Cruel or unusual punishment; People v Kardasz

The court held that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations, that OV 3 was properly scored, and that lifetime SORA registration was not cruel or unusual punishment. Defendant rejected a plea offer, proceeded to trial, and was convicted of two counts of CSC III. On appeal, the court first held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to correct the prosecutor’s and trial court’s sentencing-guidelines estimate because the record showed the guidelines were only estimates, not guarantees. The trial court asked the prosecutor for an “idea” of the expected guidelines, and later asked defendant whether he understood he would “potentially” face higher guidelines and consecutive sentences if convicted. Because words like “potential” and “idea” were understandable to a layperson, counsel’s failure to correct the estimate was not objectively unreasonable. The court next held that OV 3 was properly scored at 10 points because the victim’s nausea qualified as bodily injury under Lampe, which broadly defines bodily injury as an “unwanted physically damaging consequence,” and the nausea required medical treatment because she was prescribed Zofran. Finally, the court rejected defendant’s facial challenge to lifetime SORA registration. Relying on Kardasz, the court held that the 2021 SORA is punishment but is not cruel or unusual as applied to Tier III offenders, and CSC III is a Tier III offense. Affirmed.