Warrantless home search; Drug-profile testimony; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 19; Discretionary sentencing decisions under MCL 333.7413(1); Extension of People v Norfleet; Doubling the authorized sentence; Doubling a defendant’s guidelines range; Effect of People v Lockridge on People v Williams; Discretionary consecutive sentencing; Adequate explanation requirement; MCL 768.7b(2)(b)’s mandatory consecutive sentence requirement; Cruel or unusual punishment; Judgment of sentence (JOS)

The court rejected defendant-Hines’s challenges to the warrantless search of his home and the admission of allegedly impermissible drug-profile testimony. But it found that there was insufficient evidence to score 25 points for OV 19. It further held “that the principles outlined in Norfleet apply to discretionary sentencing decisions under MCL 333.7413(1).” In addition, it found that Lockridge effectively overruled Williams. “Post-Lockridge, MCL 333.7413 has no effect on the advisory” guidelines but does “potentially increase the statutory minimum.” It concluded the trial court failed to “adequately explain its decision to impose discretionary consecutive sentences for” two of his convictions under MCL 768.7b(2). Finally, it rejected his claim that MCL 768.7b(2)(b)’s mandatory consecutive sentence requirement constituted cruel or unusual punishment. Thus, the court affirmed his convictions of possession with intent to deliver meth, second or subsequent offense; possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of fentanyl, second or subsequent offense; and possession of an imitation controlled substance with intent to distribute, second or subsequent offense. But it vacated his amended JOS and remanded for resentencing. It directed the trial court on remand to “reassess OV 19 and make specific findings on whether there was sufficient evidence of Hines’s intent to bring controlled substances inside a penal facility as opposed to mere incidental possession during his arrest and intake.” Resentencing was also required given the court’s “conclusion that, post-Lockridge, MCL 333.7413 no longer permits a trial court to double the sentencing guidelines. Finally, the trial court must reassess its discretionary decision to impose consecutive sentences under MCL 768.7b(2)(a) and, if it does so, must articulate its reasoning for imposing consecutive sentences.” As to his convictions, the court found that Hines could not “establish that admission of the evidence discovered in his home” or the drug profile evidence that was improper affected the outcome of the trial. As to his sentencing, the court concluded “the trial court sufficiently articulated its reasoning for doubling Hines’s statutory maximum sentence” but erred in doubling his guidelines. And its “failure to state its reasoning for imposing a discretionary consecutive sentence amounted to an abuse of discretion.” The court retained jurisdiction.