Sufficiency of the evidence for a carjacking conviction; MCL 750.529a; People v Smith; “Or”; “Force”; Venue; People v Malone; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to make a futile motion for a directed verdict of acquittal; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 1; MCL 777.31(1)(c); MCL 777.31(2)(e); Reasonableness & proportionality; Effect of a within-guidelines sentence; People v Posey; Defendant’s age

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s carjacking conviction and to establish venue. It also found that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a futile motion for a directed verdict of acquittal after the prosecution rested. Further, it upheld the scoring of 15 points for OV 1 and determined that his within-guidelines sentence was not disproportionate. Thus, it affirmed his conviction and his sentence of 85 months to 30 years. The prosecution presented testimony from victim-B “establishing that the Bentley belonged to him and that he was looking to sell it. [B] testified that defendant looked at the Bentley and stated: ‘Oh, yeah, this is nice, I’m going to take this.’ Defendant then pointed a gun at [B], got into the Bentley, and drove away. The title to the Bentley was later found at a home where defendant was staying. From this evidence, a reasonable jury could infer that [he] committed larceny.” The court further concluded that while “the prosecution was only required to prove either that defendant used force, violence, or a threat of force or violence, or that” he put B in fear, the evidence presented was sufficient “to prove both of those alternative elements. The prosecution’s evidence established that defendant used the threat of force or violence by pointing a gun at” B. The Michigan “Supreme Court has held that a defendant in a carjacking case can threaten force or violence by displaying a gun or pointing it at the victim.” Further, the evidence was sufficient to establish that he “used force while fleeing the scene, by striking [B] with the Bentley” – he was not required to injure him “to satisfy this element.” In addition, regardless of whether B “feared for his life when the gun was pointed at him, when defendant began to drive away, or at both times, his testimony was sufficient to establish this alternate element of carjacking.” In rejecting defendant’s venue argument, the court noted that the “prosecution provided the address of the parking lot where the crime was committed, including its location in the city of Troy. A reasonable jury could infer that the crime was committed in Oakland County because Troy is located completely within Oakland County.”