Sufficiency of the evidence; Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW); Whether defendant carried the knife as a dangerous weapon; People v. Lueth; People v. Wolfe; People v. Bennett; People v. Cameron; People v. Nowack; MCL 750.227(1); People v. Brown; People v. Triplett; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Leblanc; People v. Trakhtenberg; Strickland v. Washington; People v. Russell; Failure to investigate or call a deputy as a witness; Whether the right to a fair trial was violated by the admission of a sergeant’s testimony; People v. Cain; People v. Carines; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); Sentencing; Notice of intent to seek a fourth-offense habitual offender enhancement; People v. Houston; MCL 769.13; Whether the upward departure was reasonable & proportionate; People v. Anderson; People v. Milbourn; People v. Lampe; Assessment of a $60 DNA testing fee; MCL 28.176(5); MCL 28.176(3)

The court held that there was sufficient evidence that defendant carried a concealed dangerous weapon in violation of MCL 750.227(1), that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, and that he was not entitled to resentencing on the basis of an untimely notice of sentencing enhancement. Thus, it affirmed but remanded to the trial court to vacate the $60 DNA assessment fee. He was convicted of CCW. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 5 to 20 years. Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence that he carried the knife as a dangerous weapon. The prosecution claimed that the knife discovered in defendant’s vehicle was “any other dangerous weapon.” That was, it “did not claim that the knife was a ‘dagger, dirk, stiletto, [or] a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument’ specifically prohibited by MCL 750.227(1), i.e., it was not a dangerous weapon per se.” The evidence “was that the knife was found unsheathed with the handle facing forward.” A sergeant “opined that the knife’s only real utility would be as a stabbing instrument and the evidence indicated that it was easily accessible to defendant. Although defendant stated that his intent in carrying the knife was not for bodily assault or defense, but to defend himself against raccoons, and that he did not know that it was in the car, the jury apparently found that this explanation was not credible.” Based on circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences, and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of the jury verdict, a rational trier of fact could determine that he “carried the knife for the purpose of use as a weapon.”