Sufficiency of the evidence for a CSC III conviction under MCL 750.520d(1)(b) (sexual penetration by force or coercion); People v Aikens; Sufficiency of the victim’s testimony; MCL 750.520h; Sentencing; Presumption that a within-guidelines sentence is proportionate; People v Posey; Overcoming the presumption; People v Burkett

The court held that the victim’s testimony was sufficient to support defendant’s CSC III conviction, and that defendant did not overcome the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence was proportionate. He was sentenced to 24 months to 15 years. He argued there was insufficient evidence “because the victim delayed reporting, and did not produce DNA evidence or submit to a medical examination. However, that type of evidence is not required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Under MCL 750.520h, a victim’s testimony by itself can be sufficient evidence for a conviction. The victim gave “detailed testimony about how the penetration occurred.” The court held that her testimony provided sufficient “evidence defendant forced penetration when he continued to penetrate [her] labia as she was pushing his hand away. Further, defendant surprised [her] as she was vulnerable on a massage table. Even though there was no threat or intimidation, the victim’s testimony is sufficient to show force under MCL 750.520b(1)(f)(i) and (v).” The jury resolved his claim that her “testimony was inconsistent and incredible[,]” and the court noted that a shop logbook showing an appointment, its duration, and what the customer paid was consistent with her testimony. As to his sentencing argument, he tried “to rebut the presumption of proportionality by referring to his lack of criminal history, gainful employment, and the victim’s lack of cooperation with law enforcement.” But the court found these reasons unpersuasive, noting the trial court acknowledged his “lack of a criminal history and still found the minimum sentence proportionate based on the seriousness of” his crime. The fact he was employed was not an unusual circumstance, And “the victim sufficiently cooperated with law enforcement by providing evidence, undergoing interviews, and testifying for the prosecution.” The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Affirmed.