-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

May 7, 2015 

v No. 319593 

Wayne Circuit Court 

TYRONE POSEY, LC No. 07-020042-FH 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: BECKERING, P.J., and CAVANAGH and SAAD, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant appeals his bench trial conviction of possession with intent to deliver cocaine 

in violation of MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii). For the reasons stated below, we affirm. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 While making a traffic stop with colleagues, a Detroit Police officer saw defendant, who 

was a passenger in the vehicle, get out of the car and throw a bag of what appeared to be illegal 

drugs in the front seat of the car. The driver took the bag and placed it under the passenger seat. 

After detaining defendant and his associate, the police took the bag from under the seat, and saw 

what appeared to be crack cocaine. A forensic chemist at the department verified that the bag 

contained cocaine. 

 The prosecution charged defendant with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver it, 

under MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii). After a bench trial, at which defendant testified on his own 

behalf, the court found defendant guilty.1

 On appeal, defendant claims that he received 

ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney did not challenge the legality of the 

traffic stop that led to defendant’s prosecution. He also asserts that the trial court erred when it 

did not make a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines. 

 

1

 The court convicted defendant in February 2008, but his sentencing hearing did not take place 

until October 2013. In the interim, defendant supposedly fled to Missouri. He periodically 

visited Detroit, but did not turn himself in for sentencing during these visits. 
-2- 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 Because defendant did not (1) file a motion for a new trial or (2) ask for an evidentiary 

hearing pursuant to People v Ginther2

 in the trial court, his claim for ineffective assistance of 

counsel is unpreserved. People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69, 80; 829 NW2d 266 (2012). 

Accordingly, we review his claim for mistakes apparent on the record. Id. “Whether defendant 

was denied the effective assistance of counsel presents a mixed question of fact and 

constitutional law.” People v Vaughn, 491 Mich 642, 650; 821 NW2d 288 (2012). The trial 

court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, while matters of constitutional law are 

reviewed de novo. Id. 

 A trial court’s departure from the legislative sentencing guidelines range is reviewed for 

clear error, but “we review for an abuse of discretion whether the reasons given for departure are 

substantial and compelling.” People v Malinowski, 301 Mich App 182, 185; 835 NW2d 468 

(2013). Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Id. 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL 

 Effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed by the United States and Michigan 

constitutions. US Const Am VI; Const 1963, art 1, § 20. “In order to obtain a new trial, a 

defendant must show that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of 

reasonableness and (2) but for counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable probability 

that the outcome would have been different.” People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51; 826 

NW2d 136 (2012). Defense counsel is “strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance 

and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.” Vaughn, 

491 Mich at 670. An attorney cannot be held ineffective for failure to make a meritless 

objection. People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192, 201; 793 NW2d 120 (2010). 

 The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects a person against 

unreasonable searches and seizures. People v Dunbar, 306 Mich App 562, 564; 857 NW2d 280 

(2014). However, a police officer’s decision to stop an automobile does not violate the Fourth 

Amendment if the police officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. 

Id. 

 MCL 257.648(1) provides, “[t]he operator of a vehicle or bicycle upon a highway, before 

stopping or turning from a direct line, shall first determine that the stopping or turning can be 

made in safety and shall give a signal as required in this section.” Violation of MCL 257.648 is 

a civil infraction. MCL 257.648(6). In turn, MCL 257.648(2) mandates that “a signal required 

under this section shall be given either by means of the hand and arm in the manner specified in 

 

2

 390 Mich 436; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). 
-3- 

this section, or by a mechanical or electrical signal device that conveys an intelligible signal or 

warning to other highway traffic.”3

 Here, the traffic stop that led to defendant’s prosecution was legal. Police officers 

testified at trial that they saw the car in which defendant was a passenger make a left-hand turn 

without using a left-turn signal, which gave them cause to stop the vehicle pursuant to MCL 

257.648. Though defendant testified that the driver used a left-turn signal when he made the 

turn, the trial judge did not find defendant’s assertions to be credible.4 Defendant’s counsel 

cannot be held ineffective for failure to make a meritless objection. Ericksen, 288 Mich App at 

201. 

B. SENTENCING GUIDELINES 

 “If the sentence of a trial court is within the appropriate sentencing guidelines range, this 

Court must affirm that sentence unless the trial court erred by scoring the guidelines or relied on 

inaccurate information when determining the defendant’s sentence.” Malinowski, 301 Mich App 

at 185. A trial court may depart from the sentencing guidelines if it has a substantial and 

compelling reason to do so, and those reasons must be stated on the record. Id. at 185-186. The 

court’s reasons for “a particular departure” from the guidelines range must be “objective and 

verifiable.” Id. at 186. 

 Here, the trial court sentenced defendant to a minimum sentence of 88 months’ 

imprisonment, which was within the sentencing guidelines range of 87 to 145 months’ 

imprisonment. Accordingly, we must affirm the sentence unless “the trial court erred by scoring 

the guidelines or relied on inaccurate information when determining the defendant’s sentence.” 

Id. at 185. Defendant does not argue that the trial court improperly scored the guidelines “or 

 

3

 At the outset, we note that defendant’s argument for ineffective assistance of counsel is 

premised on the assertion that the district court dismissed the case against the driver of the 

vehicle. Defendant, who must establish the factual predicate for this claim, has not done so. 

People v Hoag, 460 Mich 1, 6; 594 NW2d 57 (1999). He failed to provide any record materials 

to show that the driver’s case was dismissed, or the court’s reasons for the supposed dismissal. 

Were we nonetheless to assume the existence of such a judgment, defendant fails to explain why 

the outcome in the driver’s case should dictate the outcome in this case. See People v Payne, 

285 Mich App 181, 195; 774 NW2d 714 (2009) (“[a]n appellant may not merely announce his 

position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, nor may he 

give only cursory treatment with little or no citation of supporting authority”). 

4

 We note that defendant does not argue that the officers improperly took the cocaine from the 

car. This is most likely because the officers lawfully stopped the vehicle, and the cocaine was in 

plain view. See People v Antwine, 293 Mich App 192, 201; 809 NW2d 439 (2011). 
-4- 

relied on inaccurate information when determining the defendant’s sentence.”5

 Accordingly, his 

appeal on this issue has no merit. 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Jane M. Beckering 

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh 

/s/ Henry William Saad 

 

5

 Defendant instead asserts that the trial court did not consider his work history and familial 

connections during the period from 2008 to 2013, when he evaded sentencing for his conviction. 

But the trial court heard his attorney make this argument, and did not decide to make a 

downward departure. Because the trial court’s sentencing determination is within the guidelines, 

it is not appropriate for us to consider this argument on appeal for the reasons stated above.