Possession with intent to deliver fentanyl; Possession with intent to deliver cocaine; MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(ii); Search warrant; Standing; Probable cause; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b); Prosecutorial error; Drug-profile evidence; Narcotics expert; MRE 702; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Sentencing; Blanket sentencing policy; Individualized sentencing; People v Chapa; People v Pennington

The court held that defendant’s search-warrant challenge failed, and the challenged other-acts and expert testimony did not require reversal, but resentencing was required because the trial court relied on a blanket no-departure policy. Defendant was convicted of possessing with intent to deliver large quantities of fentanyl and cocaine after officers found drugs in a home associated with him. The trial court imposed within-guidelines sentences after stating, “I don’t sentence below the guidelines.” On appeal, the court first held that he lacked standing to challenge the home search because, at the suppression hearing, he denied the house, clothing, or items were his, and the limited evidence showed he was “merely a visitor,” not someone with a legitimate expectation of privacy. The court further held that, even if standing existed, the warrant was supported by probable cause because he left the residence immediately before cocaine was found near his feet, had a history of narcotics trafficking, and the affidavit created a “fair probability that evidence of narcotics trafficking would be discovered within the residence.” The court next held that prior drug arrests were admissible under MRE 404(b) because knowledge, possession, and intent were contested, and the prior acts involved concealment, drugs, and small-denomination cash, supporting an inference of the “same recurring pattern of drug-trafficking activity.” It also rejected the prosecutorial-error and ineffective-assistance claims because the challenged testimony was nonresponsive or admissible contextual evidence, “‘unresponsive answers from witnesses are generally not prosecutorial error,’” and futile objections were not required. The court found no error in qualifying the detective as a narcotics expert because “‘drug-related law enforcement is a recognized area of expertise,’” and his testimony explained the significance of drug quantities, cash, and scales rather than inviting conviction from a profile. But the court held that resentencing was required because the trial court’s statement that it did not sentence below the guidelines showed it “declined to consider” a lower sentence under a “blanket policy” instead of individualized assessment. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing.