Sufficiency of the evidence for a kidnapping conviction; MCL 750.349(1)(d); “Restraint” (MCL 750.349(2)); Great weight of the evidence; Sentencing; Scoring of PRV 5 & OVs 4, 10, & 14; MCL 777.55(1)(d); People v Love; MCL 777.34(1)(a) & (2); MCL 777.40(1)(a); “Predatory conduct”; People v Cannon; MCL 777.44(1)(a); “Lead”; Multiple offender situation; People v Ackah-Essien; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to present evidence an earlier conviction was obtained without counsel & to object to the scoring of OV 14; Failure to make a futile argument or objection

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant-Nardini’s kidnapping conviction and that the conviction was not against the great weight of the evidence. As to his sentencing, it concluded the trial court did not err in scoring 5 points for PRV 5, 10 points for OVs 4 and 14, and 15 points for OV 10. Further, it rejected his claim his attorney “was ineffective for failing to present evidence that his earlier conviction was obtained without counsel” and for not objecting to the scoring of OV 14. He was also convicted of absconding or forfeiting bond. He was sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years for that conviction and 20 to 60 years for kidnapping. The case arose from his kidnapping of his biological child, LN. His estranged wife (P) is LN’s mother. Nardini had previously taken “physical custody of LN. There was not a formal custody agreement or court order,” P stated that on 1/9/23, while Nardini was incarcerated on other charges, “she went to her attorney to seek an ex parte order for LN’s return. The ex parte order provided, ‘Ex-parte Order for Minor Child to be Returned to the Plaintiff’s Care Until Further Order of the Court.’ The order was served on Nardini in jail before his release.” Thus, when he took LN out of state after he was released from jail, “he did so without legal authority, satisfying part of the statutory definition of ‘restraint,’ i.e., without lawful authority.” In addition, his “own testimony provided evidence of restraint. At trial Nardini stated that he took control of LN at a fast food restaurant, put her in her car seat, and buckled her in. When asked if LN was free to leave, Nardini replied ‘[s]he was buckled in her car seat.’ . . . When the prosecution asked Nardini, ‘You weren’t going to let her wander off out of that car seat and start walking down the road, were you?’ Nardini replied, ‘Absolutely not.’ In short, he intended to take LN wherever he wanted, ‘no matter what LN would have said . . . [.]’ These actions meet the statutory definition of restraint because LN’s movements were restricted and she was confined.” The court added that police located and arrested him in Ohio. “During his arrest, he admitted to taking LN outside of the state, thus satisfying the relevant remaining element of kidnapping.” Affirmed.