Background
Douglas Bain Thwaites and the victim had been in a dating relationship and lived together for approximately three years. Over a two-day period in September 2022, Thwaites physically and sexually assaulted the victim in their shared home. The victim testified that he confined her, repeatedly struck her, and orally penetrated her multiple times without consent. The ordeal ended when Thwaites forced the victim to drive him to his mother’s house; she stopped at a drug store, ran inside for help, and police arrested Thwaites there.
A jury in Ingham Circuit Court convicted Thwaites on all four counts: first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I) under a circumstance involving commission of another felony, unlawful imprisonment, and two counts of domestic violence. As a fourth-offense habitual offender, he was sentenced to 200–720 months for unlawful imprisonment and 480–960 months for CSC-I. He did not appeal the domestic violence convictions.
On appeal, Thwaites raised three issues: (1) insufficient evidence to support the CSC-I and unlawful imprisonment convictions; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to the scoring of prior record variable (PRV) 7 and offense variable (OV) 11; and (3) disproportionate and unreasonable sentences.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed on all grounds. On sufficiency of the evidence, the panel held that the victim’s testimony—that Thwaites pinned her to the bed, forced oral penetration, and prevented her from leaving under threat of force—was sufficient for a rational jury to find each element of CSC-I and unlawful imprisonment beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that credibility determinations belong to the jury, and that some consensual contact during the same period did not negate the victim’s account of nonconsensual acts.
On ineffective assistance, the court found the PRV 7 claim abandoned because Thwaites failed to explain how a different score would have produced a lower sentence. The OV 11 claim—contesting the assessment of 50 points for two or more sexual penetrations—was waived outright: at sentencing, Thwaites had expressly confirmed the accuracy of the presentence investigation report (PSIR), which reflected the victim’s statement that he had penetrated her “several times.” Confirming the PSIR’s accuracy constituted explicit approval that precluded appellate review.
On proportionality, the court reiterated that within-guidelines sentences are presumptively proportionate and that Thwaites failed to identify unusual circumstances sufficient to rebut that presumption. His arguments regarding his prior felony record (which included criminal sexual conduct with a minor), his age, and the raw length of his sentences were each found to be undeveloped and therefore abandoned.
Key Takeaways
- A victim’s testimony alone is sufficient to support a CSC-I conviction; evidence that the defendant stopped when asked or that consensual contact also occurred does not negate evidence of separate nonconsensual acts.
- A defendant who expressly confirms the accuracy of the PSIR at sentencing waives any later challenge to offense variable scores that were based on information in that report.
- Undeveloped sentencing arguments—announced without explanation or supporting authority—are treated as abandoned and will not overcome the presumptive proportionality of a within-guidelines sentence.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces well-established Michigan principles on appellate review of jury verdicts in sexual assault cases: courts draw all inferences in favor of the prosecution, and credibility challenges to a complainant’s testimony do not transform into sufficiency challenges just because the defense disputes the witness. Practitioners should note the court’s strict treatment of the PSIR-accuracy waiver—defendants who confirm the report at sentencing forfeit variable-scoring claims even if trial counsel failed to object.
The abandonment rulings on the ineffective-assistance and proportionality arguments also serve as a reminder that bare assertions without reasoned explanation will not survive appellate scrutiny in Michigan, underscoring the importance of fully developed briefing on sentencing issues at the Court of Appeals level.