Motion to dismiss the prosecution’s habitual offender enhancement; MCL 769.12; MCL 769.13; MCR 6.112(C); Challenge to a within-guidelines sentence; Reasonableness; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to request a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of assault; Effect of a self-defense strategy; Rational view of the evidence; People v Cornell

The court held that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the prosecution’s habitual offender enhancement, and that his resulting within-guidelines sentence was presumptively proportionate. It also rejected his claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request a lesser included instruction on assault. He was convicted of CSC I, AWIGBH, third offense domestic violence, FIP, and felony-firearm. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender. As to his motion to dismiss the habitual offender enhancement, he argued the trial court erred in “failing to consider MCR 6.112(C)’s requirement that the information be filed on or before the date set for arraignment, which” was 2/4/21. But he conflated “his waiver of arraignment with ‘the date set for the arraignment.’ Because defendant waived his arraignment in this case: (1) there was no date set for arraignment, and (2) the prosecutor was required to provide notice of the enhancement ‘within 21 days after the filing of the information charging the underlying offense.’” The prosecution filed the “information and notice of enhancement on the same day; therefore, the notice of enhancement was timely under MCL 769.13(1).” As to his claim he was entitled to resentencing, his only challenge to the proportionality of his sentence was “that if the habitual offender enhancement was removed, then [his] sentence would reflect a departure from the guidelines that the trial court did not sufficiently explain. But” given that there was no error in the denial of his motion to dismiss the habitual offender enhancement, he received a within-guidelines sentence. Finally, as to defense counsel’s failure to request a lesser included offense instruction related to AWIGBH, defendant testified “that he acted in self-defense. Therefore, suggesting to the jury that [he] was guilty of misdemeanor assault would have undermined defendant’s argument that he did nothing wrong when he struck the victim.” Further, the court found it was likely the trial court would have denied a request for such an instruction “for lack of congruity with the record.” Affirmed.