People of Michigan v. Michael Eric Flores, 326936

Background

Defendant Michael Eric Flores was tried for sexual assaults on his then-stepdaughter TM (victim age 6); convictions: two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC I) and one count of second-degree CSC (CSC II).
TM testified to multiple incidents including digital contact with her genital area, defendant rubbing his penis against her, and penile penetration of her mouth; TM disclosed the abuse to her mother and later to a detective after counseling.
Defendant testified and denied the allegations; the jury convicted and the trial court sentenced Flores as a second-offense habitual offender to consecutive 40–60 year terms for each CSC I count and a concurrent 140–270 month term for CSC II.
On appeal Flores (through counsel and pro se) raised: insufficiency of evidence as to digital penetration, improper opinion testimony by a detective on the legal meaning of "penetration," prosecutorial misconduct during cross‑examination and closing, hearsay/admission of victim statements to her mother, and illegality of consecutive CSC I sentences coupled with ineffective assistance claims.
The Court affirmed convictions but vacated the consecutive CSC I sentences and remanded for resentencing because the record did not show the CSC I offenses "arose from the same transaction" as required for consecutive terms under MCL 750.520b(3).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Flores)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for digital penetration	TM’s testimony (with visual aid) described finger intrusion into outer vaginal folds sufficient to show penetration	TM said the finger did not enter the "hole," so penetration not proved beyond reasonable doubt	Held: Evidence sufficient to support CSC I based on digital penetration
Detective’s legal-opinion testimony on "penetration"	Testimony explained legal meaning; not outcome-determinative	Testimony improperly opined on law and should have been excluded	Held: Even if improper, no plain error affecting substantial rights; jury instructions cured any prejudice
Prosecutorial misconduct re: witness-credibility questions & misstatement in closing; related ineffective-assistance claim	Questions solicited defendant’s view of victim’s character; misstatement about whether children were present at visits was harmless and not deliberate	Questions and closing misstatement improperly impeached fairness; counsel ineffective for not objecting	Held: No plain error; trial court instructions cured any potential prejudice; counsel not ineffective on these points
Consecutive sentencing for two CSC I convictions; ineffective-assistance claim for counsel’s failure to challenge	Consecutive sentences permissible under statute when offenses "arise from the same transaction" and prosecution contended continuous atmosphere of abuse justified consecutive terms	Acts occurred over multiple occasions without proof they "grew out of a continuous time sequence"; consecutive terms unauthorized	Held: No evidence the two CSC I acts arose from same transaction; counsel’s approval of consecutive sentences was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial; consecutive CSC I sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing

Key Cases Cited

People v. Graves, 458 Mich. 476 (instruction presumed followed by jury)
People v. Knapp, 244 Mich. App. 361 (defendant’s opinion of witness credibility not probative)
People v. Leshaj, 249 Mich. App. 417 (lawyers’ statements not evidence; curative instructions)
People v. Smith, 456 Mich. 543 (excited utterance exception analysis)
People v. Ryan, 295 Mich. App. 388 (definition of "arising from the same transaction" for consecutive CSC I sentences)
People v. Johnson, 474 Mich. 96 ("arising out of" requires more than incidental causal connection)
People v. Brown, 220 Mich. App. 680 (consecutive sentencing permitted only when statute authorizes)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain-error review standard)
People v. Carbin, 463 Mich. 590 (ineffective-assistance prejudice standard)