Constitutional right to counsel; Self-representation; People v Anderson; MCR 6.005(E); Sufficiency of the evidence for an aggravated stalking conviction; MCL 750.411i(2)(a); “Unconsented contact” (MCL L 750.411i(1)(f)); Waiver of jury instruction issue; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 10; MCL 777.40(1)(a); “Predatory conduct” (MCL 777.40(3)(a))

The court held that (1) defendant was not denied his right to counsel, (2) there was sufficient evidence to support his aggravated stalking conviction, (3) he waived his jury instruction issue, and (4) OV 10 was properly scored at 15 points in sentencing him. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 6 to 15 years. It was “undisputed that defendant waived his right to appointed counsel and asserted his right to represent himself until” after the jury was impaneled and the first witness was sworn, when he requested a one-month adjournment to retain an attorney. The trial court was clear that it denied the “adjournment after the jury was impaneled because jeopardy had attached, defendant repeatedly declined the offer of appointed counsel, and adjournment would significantly prejudice the prosecution.” The court found that the “trial court complied with MCR 6.005 in its repeated advisement of rights and confirmation of defendant’s waiver, and in its reasons for refusing an adjournment after trial began.” In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction, defendant focused on whether his contact with the victim (S) was unconsented. The court noted that the prosecution did not have to prove S “explicitly asked defendant to stop contacting her, but only that [his] calls and texts were without [S’s] consent. Here, the numerous unanswered text messages and phone calls and [S’s] blocking of contacts from defendant’s number were proof beyond a reasonable doubt that [S] did not consent to the contacts. The fact that [S] met with defendant after the assault and that her phone showed contact with [him] during this period does not refute that [his] numerous other calls and messages were unconsented.” As to the scoring of OV 15, the court found that it was reasonable to infer from defendant’s preoffense conduct that he “intended to make [S] more susceptible to the fear that [he] would find her wherever she went.” Affirmed.