Resisting or obstructing a police officer; MCL 750.81d; Lawfulness of police conduct; People v Prude; Arrest warrant; Payton v New York; MCL 764.21; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to request an instruction on the common-law right to resist unlawful arrest; People v Moreno; Sentencing; OV 1; People v McGraw; Sentencing Information Report (SIR)

The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s resisting-or-obstructing conviction, that counsel was not ineffective, and that remand was required only to correct the SIR. Defendant was convicted after a police chief entered her mobile home while a process server was carrying out an eviction and while an active arrest warrant existed. On appeal, the court first held that the evidence supported the lawfulness element because, under Prude, a conviction is overturned only when the officer’s conduct “cannot be reasonably perceived as lawful” viewing the facts favorably to the prosecution. MCL 764.21 did not help defendant because “[a]ll witnesses agree the entry door was open,” and the evidence showed the inside door was merely pushed open while defendant resisted. The court also held that the arrest warrant authorized entry under Payton, which permits entry into a suspect’s dwelling when there is reason to believe the suspect is inside, and the jury could credit the chief’s testimony that he was told of the warrant. The court next rejected defendant’s ineffective-assistance claim because the common-law right to resist an unlawful arrest did not fit the evidence, and counsel reasonably focused on whether defendant struck or knowingly resisted the officer rather than on lawfulness. Finally, the court agreed OV 1 was improperly scored because defendant’s alleged threat to shoot the process server was not part of the sentencing offense under McGraw, and a change made to PRV 5 should have been to PRV 6. Because defendant had already served her sentence, resentencing was moot. Affirmed in part and remanded for correction of the SIR.