Search & seizure; Search incident to arrest; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to move to suppress; Futility; Denial of a motion to adjourn; MCR 2.503(B)(1); People v Lawton; Sentencing; Reasonableness; People v Posey; Effect of a within-guidelines sentence

The court held that there was no basis to suppress the evidence because a “valid search incident to arrest resulted in the discovery of the baggie” containing meth in defendant’s pocket. As a result, his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the meth also failed. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to adjourn the trial. But the trial court failed to “provide sufficient reasoning” for the court to conduct the reasonableness review mandated by Posey. Thus, it affirmed defendant’s conviction of meth possession, second offense and his guidelines range calculation but remanded for justification of his sentence or for resentencing. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 46 months to 20 years. He argued on appeal that there was no probable cause supporting his arrest for possessing a stolen motorcycle and thus, “the officers had no basis to conduct a search incident to that arrest.” As he failed to challenge the arrest or the search in the trial court, the court reviewed the issue for plain error. It held that the record established probable cause to arrest him “for possessing a stolen motorcycle.” A police officer received trustworthy information that the motorcycle in the driveway “was likely stolen, that defendant had ridden the motorcycle into the driveway of a home that was not his, and that [he] had offered to sell the motorcycle to” a witness for $200. This “evidence supported an inference that [he] possessed a stolen motorcycle, which was sufficient to establish probable cause.” As a result, his warrantless arrest was permissible and “the officers were not obligated to supply any additional justification for searching defendant incident to his arrest.” The court concluded he did not show “any error at all, much less a plain error that affected his substantial rights.” As to his motion to adjourn, his argument focused “on the fact that the laboratory report was not released until three days before trial. But defendant did not make diligent efforts to obtain independent testing at any point during the three months when the evidence was in the locker.” He also could not show he was prejudiced by the denial of an adjournment. He offered no support for his claim the substance would not test positive for meth “if it underwent independent testing.”