Sufficiency of evidence; CSC I; MCL 750.520b(2)(b); Sexual penetration; MCL 750.520a(r); Fellatio; People v Johnson; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Strickland v Washington; Ginther hearing testimony; Conflict of interest; MRPC 1.7; MRPC 1.10; Venue; MCL 767.45(1)(c); OV 11 (MCL 777.41); Criminal sexual penetrations; Presentence investigation report (PSIR) correction; Guardian ad litem (GAL)

The court held that sufficient evidence supported defendant’s CSC convictions and that defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance, but the CSC II sentences had to be vacated because the record did not show whether they were based on inaccurate OV 11 scoring. He was convicted of two counts each of CSC I and CSC II based on the victim’s testimony about multiple incidents of sexual abuse. The trial court denied defendant’s posttrial motions after a Ginther hearing. On appeal, the court first held that the victim’s testimony that defendant “put his mouth on” the victim’s penis was sufficient to prove sexual penetration for Count 2 because, unlike a mere “kissed” description, the testimony “reasonably conveyed” that defendant placed his mouth over or around the victim’s penis. The court next held that defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance. Counsel’s decisions to question the victim about an uncharged motel incident, avoid drawing attention to brief diagnosis and hearsay testimony, omit erectile-dysfunction evidence, and pursue one “core argument” that the victim was not credible and defendant lacked opportunity were reasonable strategic choices. The court also held that any conflict from the public defender’s prior GAL representation of the victim did not adversely affect counsel’s performance. It further held that venue was sufficiently supported for Counts 4 and 5. But the court held that OV 11 was improperly scored at 50 points for Count 2 because the only penetration arising out of that offense was the penetration forming the CSC I conviction, which could not be scored. The error was harmless as to the CSC I sentences because of the mandatory minimum, but the CSC II sentences were vacated because the record did not show whether they rested on inaccurate information. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.