Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); People v. Crawford; People v. VanderVliet; Huddleston v. United States; People v. Mardlin; Relevance; MRE 401; People v. Sabin (After Remand); Unfair prejudice; MRE 403; People v. Bass; People v. Jackson; Whether defendant had a common scheme, plan, or system; People v. Hine; Harmless error; People v. Lukity; Joinder; MCR 6.120(B)(1) & (2); People v. Williams; Sentencing; Scoring of PRV 5; MCL 777.55; Whether resentencing was required; People v. Francisco; Remand for the ministerial task of correcting sentencing documentation; People v. Harmon; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Nix; Failure to raise a futile objection; People v. Ericksen

Holding that the trial court did not err by admitting other acts evidence or by joining three cases, and that defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel, the court affirmed his convictions and sentences, but remanded for the ministerial task of correcting his sentencing documentation. He was convicted of three counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. The trial court sentenced him as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 6 to 30 years for each conviction. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court denied him his right to a fair trial by admitting other acts evidence. It found that “the prior incidents were sufficiently similar to support an inference that [he] had a common scheme, plan, or system when he committed the crimes in this case.” In addition, the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial, and any error was harmless. The court also rejected his claim that the trial court denied him his right to due process by joining three cases for a single trial. It noted that “there was little risk of confusion because the three charges, despite their similarities, were presented distinctly and the facts regarding the three incidents were not complex.” In addition, “the trial court’s instructions addressed any prejudice that joinder may have caused,” joinder did not infringe on his right to a fair trial, and any error was harmless. The court further rejected his contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Finally, it found that although the trial court erred in scoring PRV 5, the error did not require resentencing.