Possession of meth; Possession of cocaine; Possession of oxycodone & alprazolam; Felony-firearm; Search warrant; Probable cause; Trash pull; Confidential informant; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to move to suppress; Plea negotiations; Failure to object to the scoring of OV 14; “Leader”; Sufficiency of the evidence; Great weight of the evidence; Controlled-substance exemption; MCL 333.7403; MCL 333.7303; M Crim JI 12.4a; M Crim JI 12.5

The court held that defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, that sufficient evidence supported his convictions, and that the trial court did not err by denying his requested controlled-substance jury instructions. Defendant was convicted of drug-possession and felony-firearm offenses after officers executed a search warrant at his mobile home. The trial court denied his motions for a new trial, an evidentiary hearing, and correction of sentence. On appeal, the court first found counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress because the warrant was supported by a confidential-informant tip, surveillance tying defendant to the home, and a trash pull yielding meth residue, a scale, and baggies. It reasoned that the trash-pull evidence and tip showed a sufficient basis for probable cause and that counsel reasonably declined a meritless suppression motion. The court also rejected defendant’s plea-advice claim because counsel’s affidavit and the pretrial record showed defendant understood the offer, including that he would serve “no additional time thereafter.” As to the failure to object to the OV 14 score, the court upheld the score because defendant controlled the home, allowed others to live there, knew of drug use, and possessed most drugs in his office, supporting an inference that he was a leader. The court next held that constructive possession supported the meth, cocaine, and felony-firearm convictions because the drugs and firearm were in or near defendant’s office, were accessible, and his statements showed knowledge of drug use in the home. Finally, the court held that defendant was not entitled to a special instruction or M Crim JI 12.4a because another individual (C) could not legally authorize defendant to possess or dispense C’s prescription medications. Affirmed.