Sufficiency of the evidence; CSC I conviction under MCL 750.520b(1)(c); “Force or coercion”; Unlawful imprisonment (MCL 750.349b); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to the scoring of OV 11; Waiver; Proportionality; Presumption that a within-guidelines sentence is proportionate; Unusual circumstances

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s CSC I and unlawful imprisonment convictions. It also rejected his sentencing challenges, concluding that he abandoned or waived his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that he failed to rebut the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence was proportionate. He was convicted of CSC I under MCL 750.520b(1)(c). He contended “that the victim’s testimony was insufficient evidence of ‘force or coercion’ to support” that conviction, and also insufficient to establish that he unlawfully restrained her movement for purposes of the unlawful imprisonment conviction. But the court held that her “testimony provided sufficient evidence to establish that he used force to accomplish sexual penetration. The victim testified that defendant pinned her to the bed and forced his penis into her mouth. [He] also physically assaulted her causing various injuries, including bruising.” It further held “that there was sufficient evidence of forcible restraint to support defendant’s unlawful imprisonment conviction.” The victim’s testimony was sufficient to establish that he “knowingly restrained her and that this restraint facilitated” the CSC I. Specifically, she testified that he “prevented her from leaving his side throughout the two-day ordeal and that defendant threatened her if she tried to run away.” This testimony provided the jury with sufficient evidence to conclude that he “forcibly confined her in the house under threat and actual use of force . . . .” He claimed that his sentences were “disproportionate because his criminal history did not justify” them and, in light of his age, they constituted cruel and unusual punishment. But he failed “to explain how his three prior felony convictions—which arose from his criminal sexual conduct with a minor—and his three misdemeanor convictions constitute unusual circumstances that render his sentence disproportionate.” Likewise, he failed “to explain how his age constitutes an unusual circumstance, and” the court noted that it “has already rejected the argument that a defendant’s age is sufficient to overcome the presumptive proportionality of” a within-guidelines sentence. Affirmed.