Sufficiency of evidence; First-degree home invasion; MCL 750.110a(2); Dangerous weapon; People v Lange; Lawful presence in dwelling; Lay opinion testimony; MRE 701; Opinion on guilt; People v Bragdon; Habitual-offender notice; MCL 769.13(1); MCR 6.112(F); OV 1 (aggravated use of weapon); MCL 777.31(1)(d)

The court held that: 1) sufficient evidence supported defendant’s first-degree home-invasion conviction; 2) the challenged officer opinion testimony was admissible; 3) the habitual-offender notice was timely; and 4) OV 1 was properly scored. Defendant and a codefendant entered a home and assaulted the victim, who was doing repair work there. The jury convicted him of first-degree home invasion and AWIGBH. On appeal, the court first held that sufficient circumstantial evidence showed defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon. The victim testified that defendant held a shiny metal object and that his punches felt heavy, and a deputy testified the victim’s facial fractures and broken teeth were “not typical without the use of a weapon.” The court also held that sufficient evidence showed the victim was lawfully present because he testified the homeowner arranged for him to enter and perform work, left the door open, and left a key for him. The jury could credit that testimony over the homeowner’s contrary testimony. The court next held that the deputy’s testimony that the object could have been brass knuckles or another object was admissible lay opinion because it was based on his investigative experience and helpful to whether defendant had a dangerous weapon. It was not an opinion on guilt. The court also rejected defendant’s habitual-offender notice challenge because the prosecutor filed and served the notice within 21 days after defendant waived arraignment on the information. Finally, the court held that OV 1 was properly scored at 10 points because the evidence supported that defendant touched the victim with a metal object used as a weapon. Affirmed.