First-degree home invasion; MCL 750.110a(2); Sufficiency of the evidence; CSC I; MCL 750.520b; Prior acts of domestic violence; MCL 768.27b; MRE 403; People v Berklund; Sentencing; OV 7; MCL 777.37(1)(a); Similarly egregious conduct; OV 8; MCL 777.38; OV 12 (contemporaneous felonious criminal acts); MCL 777.42(1)(d) & (2)(a)(ii); People v Carter; Hearsay at sentencing; Victim-impact statement; Proportionality; Upward departure; Consecutive sentencing; MCL 750.110a(8); MCL 750.520b(3)

The court held that: 1) sufficient evidence supported defendant’s first-degree home-invasion conviction, 2) prior acts of forced sex and domestic violence were admissible under MCL 768.27b, 3) most challenged OV scores were proper, and 4) the upward-departure sentence was proportionate. He was convicted of first-degree home invasion, CSC I, and domestic violence after the victim testified that, after their relationship ended, he entered her home without permission, terrorized her with a baseball bat, hit her, and sexually assaulted her. On appeal, the court held that the evidence supported entry without permission because the victim testified that defendant was not invited inside, she placed his belongings outside, she asked him to return any key, and defendant admitted “he was not invited into the victim’s home” that day. The court next held the prior-acts evidence was admissible because defendant and the victim had a four-year dating relationship, the prior acts were similar, the most recent uncharged act occurred about 10 days before the charged offenses, and the evidence was probative of credibility, propensity, and a common scheme while “‘not unfairly prejudicial.’” As to sentencing, the court held OV 7 was properly scored at 50 points because defendant shoved a baseball bat in the victim’s face, made her count the notches, and described them as marks from people who had “messed” with him, which was “designed to substantially increase” her fear. It held that OV 8 was not an issue because the trial court scored it at zero. It further held that OV 12 should be reduced to 5 points because felonious assault with the bat could not be counted separately from the CSC theories, but unlawful imprisonment after the CSCs supported one contemporaneous felony. Finally, the court held that the above-guidelines CSC I sentence was proportionate because the trial court relied on defendant’s failure to comply with court orders, attempts to contact the victim, lack of remorse, probationary status for an assaultive crime, PPO violation involving the same victim, and the egregious offense conduct. Affirmed but remanded for correction of the SIR.