Sentencing; Scoring of OV 19 (interference with the administration of justice); MCL 777.49(c); People v Hershey; Consideration of conduct after the completion of the sentencing offense; People v Smith; Interfering with a police officer’s attempt to investigate a crime; People v Barbee; Right against self-incrimination; Distinguishing People v Wright; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to make a meritless or futile objection

The court held that the trial court did not err by assessing 10 points for OV 19, and defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a meritless or futile objection. Defendant was convicted of possession of meth, second or subsequent offense, following a stop and search of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. The trial court sentenced him to 21 months to 20 years. On appeal, the court rejected his challenge to the assessment of 10 points for OV 19 and his counsel’s failure to object to the assessment. “Defendant argues that his statements to the police officer were only maintaining his innocence and the statements did not interfere with the police investigation. The record does not support defendant’s argument.” He made “statements to the police officer ‘diverting suspicion onto others and away from him.’” The facts supported the trial “court’s finding that defendant had ‘legally possessed’ the box [containing the meth], intended to deceive the police officer, and did something more than merely denying culpability.” The court also disagreed with his claim that his failure to appear for a PSIR interview could not be used against him. Distinguishing Wright, it noted he “was instructed after the jury trial that he was required to meet with the Department of Corrections. Defendant did not appear at the interview and remain silent; instead, he did not appear at the interview at all.” Moreover, he “did not attend the initially-scheduled sentencing hearing, causing a bench warrant to be issued and judicial and law enforcement resources to be expended to hold him accountable for his conviction.” Finally, because “assessing 10 points for OV 19 was not erroneous and was supported” by the record, defense counsel “did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to make a meritless or futile objection.” Affirmed.