If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 14, 2024

v No. 364898

Oakland Circuit Court MARK EDWARD HENTON, LC No. 20

- 273402

- FH

Defendant

- Appellant.

Before: P ATEL

, P .J., and K. F. K ELLY and R IORDAN , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

.

Defendan t appeals as of right his jury trial conviction of two counts of third

- degree criminal

sexual conduct (CSC

- III), MCL 750.520d(1)(c) (defendant knows or has reason to know victim is mentally incapable, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless). Defendant was sentenced to 51 months to 15 years’ imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. On app eal

, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his CSC

- III conviction involving digital penetration, asserting that the primary evidence regarding that count was admitted in

violation of the corpus del i cti rule and therefore violated his right to due process

. D efendant

further contends that he is entitled to resentencing because, without that conviction, his guidelines

score would be altered. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROU ND

This case arises out of an incident of sexual a ssault committed by defendant against the

victim . On the date of the incident, the victim was staying at the home of her friend Jodi. After drinking wine and watching television together, the victim fell asleep in bed. Defendant, who had

a sexual relati onship with Jodi , came to Jodi’s home and engaged in consensual sexual intercourse

with her . After wards , defendant told Jodi that he was going to “f*** with [her] girl,” and entered

the bedroom where the victim was asleep

. The victim awoke, with her pant s off, to a man she did not know, penetrating her vagina with his penis

. She opened her eyes, and the man jumped off of

her and left the room.

Defendant was interviewed by Detective Peter Canelopoulos, a detective with the West Bloomfield Police Depart ment’s I nvestigations B ureau. Defendant told Canelopoulos that he- 2

-

entered the room while the victim was sleeping. Defendant started rubbing the victim’s breasts. According to defendant, the victim grabbed his hand and moved it down toward her vagina.

D efendant told Canelopoulos that the victim was “into it” and he could see the whites of her eyes. Defendant also told Canelopoulos that he inserted his finger into the victim’s vagina.

Defendant was charged with two counts of CSC

- III. Count 1 alleged that defendant penetrated the victim’s genital opening with his penis , while knowing or having reason to know

that she was physically helpless. Count 2 alleged that defendant penetrated the victim’s genital opening with his finger , while knowing or having reason to know that she was physically helpless.

At trial, Canelopoulos recount ed what defendant told him. The victim and Jodi also

testified regarding the night of the incident. Katrina Ferris, a sexual assault nurse examiner who performed a forensi c examination on the victim , explained that she observed two tears on the

victim’s genitals. T wo forensic biologists provided the results of testing that demonstrated a strong
likelihood that DNA found on the victim’s labia majora and pants originated fro m defendant.

Defendant testified , admitting that he inserted his finger into the victim’s vagina, and then inserted his penis into the victim’s vagina. According to defendant, the victim did not appear to be sleeping or unconscious when he and the victim had sexual intercourse

, and it was consensual

.

The jury found defendant guilty on both counts. The trial court sentenced defendant at the bottom of the minimum sentence range. This appeal followed.

II. ISSUE PRESERVA TION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

“In order to preserve the issue of the improper admission of evidence for appeal, a party generally must object at the time of admission.” People v Knox , 469 Mich 502, 508; 674 NW2d 366 (2004). Defendant argues that the admission of inculpatory statements that he made to Canelopoulos violate d the corpus delicti rule. Defendant failed to object to the admission of this

evidence at trial. Th is issue is not preserved.

Ordinarily, “[t]his Court reviews a lower court’s decision regarding the corpus delicti

r equirement for an abuse of discretion.” People v Burns , 250 Mich App 436, 438; 647 NW2d 515 (2002). However, “ [a] ppellate courts may grant relief for unpreserved errors if the proponent of the error can satisfy the ‘plain error’ standard [

. ] ” People v Ca in , 498 Mich 108, 116; 869 NW2d 829 (2015). “To avoid forfeiture under the plain error rule, three requirements must be met: 1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Carines , 460 Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999 )

.

“We revie w constitutional questions de novo.” People v Sadows , 283 Mich App 65, 67; 768 NW2d 93 (2009). “This Court reviews de novo a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.” People v Sm ith , 336 Mich App 297, 302; 970 NW2d 450 (2021)

. “De novo review means we review this issue independently, without any required deference to the courts below.” People v

Bruner , 501 Mich 220, 226; 912 NW2d 514 (2018)

. “This Court reviews the proportional ity of a trial court’s sentence for an abuse of discretion. A given sentence constitutes an abuse of discretion if that sentence violates the principle of proportionality. . . .” People v Lydic , 335 Mich App 486, 500; 967 NW2d 847 (2021) (quotation marks and citations omitted).- 3

- III. CORPUS DELI

CT I

D efendant argues that his CSC

- III conviction involving digital penetration should be reversed because it was based on inadmissible evidence, in violation of the corpus delicti rule and his right to due process. We disagree.

“[P]roof of the corpus delicti is required before the prosecution is allowed to introduce the inculpatory statements of an accused.” People v McMahan , 451 Mich 543, 548; 548 NW2d 199 (1996). “Under the corpus delicti rule, a defen dant ’ s confession may not be admitted unless there is direct or circumstantial evidence independent of the confession establishing (1) the occurrence of the specific injury

. . . and (2) some criminal agency as the source of the injury.” People v

Schumach er , 276 Mich App 165, 180; 740 NW2d 534 (2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Once this showing has been made, a defendant’s confession then may be used to elevate the crime to one of a higher degree or to establish aggravating circumstances.” People v Ish , 252 Mich App 115, 117; 652 NW2d 257 (2002 ) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[I]t is not necessary that the prosecution present independent evidence of every element of the offense before a defendant’s confession may be admitted.” Id

.

“The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to prevent the use of a defendant’s confession to

convict him of a crime that did not occur.” Id . at 116. “[T]he corpus delicti rule does not bar admissions of fact that do not amount to a confession of guilt.” Schumacher , 276 Mich App at
181

. “If the fact admitted does not of itself show guilt but needs proof of other facts, which are not admitted by the accused, in order to sh ow guilt, it is not a confession, but an admission.” Id

. (cleaned up).

The trial court did not plainly err by admitting statements voluntarily made by defendant to Canelopoulos. 1 The CSC

- III conviction at issue required the prosecution to prove that defendant penetrated the victim’s genital opening with his finger , while knowing or having reason to know

the victim was physically helpless. We find the admission of defendant’s statements to Canelopoulos into evidence was not a violation of the corpus delicti rule because defendant’s

statements were not confessions of guilt. Although defendant admitted to digitally penetrating the

victim , defendant maintained that the victim was actively participating in and enjoying the sexual

intercourse. The corpus delicti rule does not apply to admissions not amounting to confessions of guilt. See id

. In other words, defendant’s statements were not a confession but a factual assertion regarding the consensual nature of the interaction. Thus, the trial court did not plainly err by allowing Canelopoulos’s testimony.

1 Defendant argues that his conviction violates the corpus delicti rule because it was based solely

on his statement to Canelopoulos and his trial testimony. However, t he corpus delicti rule does not apply to statements made by defendant during his trial testimony because the corpus delicti

rule only applies to inculpatory statements of the accused offered as evidence by the prosecution.

See McMahan , 451 Mich at 548. Defendant w as called as a witness by the defense. The crux of this issue is whether the trial court plainly erred by admitting statements made by defendant to Canelopoulos.- 4

-

E ven assuming that defendant’s statements were a confession of guilt, the prosecution still

did not violate the corpus delicti rule. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence of defendant’s gu ilt, independent of his statements to Canelopoulos, and was able to show that criminal agency was the cause of the victim’s injury. This circumstantial evidence included the victim’s testimony that she did not consent to any sexual contact and the results of the forensic examination. In other words, t he prosecution established corpus delicti by, independent of defendant’s statements, putting forth evidence defendant sexually assaulted the victim while she was sleeping and physical evidence of her injury

.

“Due process requires that a prosecutor introduce evidence sufficient to justify a trier of fact to conclude that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v Tombs , 260 Mich App 201, 206

- 207; 679 NW2d 77 (2003). T he corpus delicti rule was not violated, and the prosecution introduced sufficient admissible evidence to justify the guilty verdict. In particular, given the victim’s testimony that she was sexually assaulted when she was asleep, defendant’s admission that he digitally p enetrated the victim, and the results of the forensic examination, the

evidence was sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of

CSC

- III under a theory of digital penetration. Defendant’s due

- process rights were n ot violated. 2

IV. PROPORTIONALITY OF SENTENCE

Defendant also appeals the reasonableness of his within

- guidelines sentence. “ [W] ithin

guidelines sentences are to be reviewed for reasonableness, but

. . . applying a presumption of proportionality .

. . th rough which the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that their

within

- guidelines sentence is unreasonable or disproportionate

. . . .” People v Posey

, 512 Mich 317, 359; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) . “A presumption of proportionality does not mean that a within

guidelines sentence is binding on the Court of Appeals.” Id . at 359 . “When a trial court sentences a defendant within the guidelines’ recommended range, it creates a presumption that the sentence is proportionate. However, unlike a mandate that a n appellate court affirm a within

- guidelines sentence, the presumption of proportionality may be overcome.” Id . at 360 . “Defendant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption” that his within

- guidelines sentence is proportional. Id. at
357

.

D efend ant’s sentence was within the minimum sentencing guidelines of 51 months to 85 months. Defendant was given a minimum sentence of 51 months. Defendant argues that his sentence is unreasonable and disproportionate because his conviction o f one of the CSC

- III counts was based on inadmissible evidence, in violation of the corpus delicti rule. According to defendant, if his conviction o f that count is reversed, his PRV and OV scores for his conviction on the remaining CSC

- III count would be lowered, entitlin g him to resentencing.

Defendant has not met his burden to overcome the presumption that his within

- guidelines

sentence is reasonable and proportionate . As discussed, defendant’s conviction of CSC

- III regarding digital penetration did not violate the cor pus delicti rule. Thus, the minimum sentencing guidelines remain unchanged. Further, d efendant has provided no additional reason why his

2 Even if the corpus delicti rule was violated, the evidence against defendant still was lega lly sufficient to sustain his conviction, given his admission to the digital penetration while testifying.- 5

-

sentence, which falls at the low end of the minimum sentencing guidelines, is unreasonable and disproportionate. The trial court correctly considered the seriousness of the crime when sentencing defendant, recounting how defendant approached a sleeping woman he did not know and sexually assaulted her while she was asleep. The trial court also considered the emotional a nd psychological impact this incident had on the victim

. These facts show that the 51

- month minimum sentence is reasonable and proportionate , and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing it

.

V. CONCLUSION

The trial court did not plainl y err by admitting evidence of statements defendant made to

Detective Canelopoulos . The admission of this evidence did not violate the corpus delicti rule or defendant’s right to due process . It follows that the trial court did not abuse its discretion w hen sentencing defendant to a minimum term of 51 months’ imprisonment. Affirmed.

/s/ Sima G. Patel /s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly

/s/ Michael J. Riordan