Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to raise an objection; MRE 702; MRE 602; Failure to move to suppress evidence & to dismiss the charges; Reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop; Nonfunctioning headlight; Sufficiency of the evidence; Possession with intent to deliver meth & less than 50 grams of heroin; Intent element; Felony-firearm; FIP; Constructive possession; Sentencing; Scoring of OVs 14 & 15; MCL 777.44(1)(a); MCL 777.45(1)(d); Proportionality; Effect of a within-guidelines sentence; Brady v Maryland; Failure to correct testimony about the terms of a plea agreement

The court rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims and held that there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions of possession with intent to deliver meth, possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of heroin, felony-firearm, and FIP. It also upheld the scoring of 10 points for OV 14 and 50 points for OV 15, and rejected his proportionality challenge to his within-guidelines sentence. Finally, it found no merit to his claim that the prosecution committed a Brady violation by failing to correct testimony about a witness’s plea agreement. He first contended that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a deputy’s (S) providing “expert testimony” without being qualified as an expert. While defense counsel could have objected to S’s “testimony under MRE 702, declining to raise an objection can often be considered sound trial strategy.” The court noted that the defense “theory was that defendant was merely present and that defendant happened to be associated with those who committed the crimes in this case.” The court found that the failure to object to S’s “opinion of the evidence appears in line with counsel’s trial strategy of implicating others in the distribution scheme and does not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.” As to the sufficiency of the evidence, the court noted police discovered a bag in the backseat of his “vehicle that contained a clear plastic zipper baggie with a large amount of a white, chalky, crystalline substance that tested positive for methamphetamine. In the bag was a tinfoil pouch containing six smaller tinfoil bindles containing a substance that tested positive for heroin. The bag also contained a digital scale and packaging material. Defendant had approximately $2,000 in cash in his wallet, and $600 in his pants pocket. The quantity and nature of this evidence was sufficient for the jury to reasonably conclude that defendant had the requisite intent to deliver” meth and heroin. As to the felony-firearm and FIP convictions, taken “together, and viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for a jury to reasonably infer that defendant was in constructive possession of the gun.” Affirmed.