Sufficiency of the evidence; Possession with intent to deliver 50 grams or more but less than 450 grams of a controlled substance (MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii)) & keeping or maintaining a drug house (MCL 333.7405(1)(d)); Ineffective assistance of counsel; Cross-examination; Failure to object; MRE 701 & 702; People v Dobek; Detroit Police Department (DPD)

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions of possession with intent to deliver 50 grams or more but less than 450 grams of a controlled substance and of keeping or maintaining a drug house. It also rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. As to his convictions under MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii), the evidence “at trial showed a connection between defendant and the cocaine and fentanyl to establish [he] constructively possessed them. For example, officers seized over $10,000 in cash at the property, with $1,760 in smaller denominations being seized from [his] person, and $8,700, in larger denominations, being seized from inside the backpack in the kitchen. The jury could reasonably infer that the backpack belonged to defendant because a DPD E-ticket with his name on it was found inside.” Based on their experience and knowledge as narcotics “officers, the officers believed the cash in smaller denominations found on defendant’s person were proceeds from narcotics sales to individual buyers, and the larger sums of cash in the backpack were from ‘middleman’ sales to other dealers to then resell to individuals. This, coupled with [an officer’s] seeing defendant make many hand-to-hand transactions that were short in duration during his surveillance of the property, established a sufficient nexus between [him] and the large quantity of cocaine and fentanyl seized at the property to support a conclusion [he] had constructive possession of the narcotics.” In addition, given “the officers’ observations before the raid, and the way the untested substances on the coffee table were packaged, it was reasonable to infer defendant intended to deliver” them. The court also concluded the “facts, taken together and viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” were sufficient to support his conviction under MCL 333.7405(1)(d). As to his ineffective assistance claims, defense “counsel’s theory was the officers’ failure to establish proof of residency from evidence obtained during the raid absolved defendant of guilt, but would have implicated the other two men residing at the property. This was a reasonable strategy . . . .” Further, the cross-examinations as to “whether defendant possessed any of the firearms seized during the raid were successful in creating sufficient reasonable doubt for the jury to acquit [him] of any firearm charges.” And any objection to testimony that was admissible under MRE 701 and 702 would have been futile. Affirmed.