Reckless driving causing death; MCL 257.626; Willful or wanton disregard; People v Carll; Intoxication evidence; People v Marshall; Blood test refusal; MCL 257.625a(9); Prosecutorial error; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Sentencing; Proportionality; People v Posey; Blood alcohol content (BAC)

The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s reckless-driving-causing-death conviction, that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to references to defendant’s blood-test refusal, and that his within-guidelines sentences were reasonable. He was convicted after driving his neighbor’s convertible while intoxicated, losing control, and killing his passenger. The court first held that the jury could find willful or wanton disregard because the prosecution presented “a plethora of evidence that defendant was speeding and neglected to stop at a stop sign,” including eyewitness testimony that the car “flew right through the stop sign,” black-box evidence showing 63 mph shortly before impact, and defendant’s admissions that he drove about 65 mph. The court also reasoned that intoxication supported recklessness because alcohol affects perception and is relevant to whether defendant “proceeded in the face of known danger,” while his BAC was 0.18, more than twice the legal limit. The court next held that the prosecutor did not err by referencing defendant’s refusal to submit to a blood draw because the refusal was used to show “that defendant was offered such a test,” and the trial court instructed the jury that the evidence was “not evidence of guilt.” It also held counsel was not ineffective because counsel used the video to support a theory that the investigation was “missing critical evidence.” Finally, the court found that defendant failed to rebut the presumption that his within-guidelines sentences were proportionate because he cited no authority showing his veteran status, public service, or remorse constituted “unusual circumstances,” and the trial court considered “the seriousness of the offense,” defendant’s history, deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of society. Affirmed.