Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
June 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
129841 Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices
Plaintiff-Appellee,
SC: 129841
v COA: 264238
Oakland CC: 2004-195667-FH
RHASIAON ROSS SMITH, 2004-196105-FH
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 14, 2005
order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of
granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for
resentencing in light of People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (2006). On remand, Offense
Variable 13 should be scored at zero. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED.
CORRIGAN, J., concurs and states as follows:
I concur in our Court’s order to remand for resentencing in light of People v
Francisco, 474 Mich 82 (2006). I write separately to note an apparent split at the Court
of Appeals regarding the number of sentencing information reports that trial courts must
prepare when a defendant has multiple convictions. In an appropriate case and in the
absence of legislative action, this Court may need to consider this issue. Because
defendant did not preserve the question, I would not address it in this case.
2
In People v Mack, 265 Mich App 122, 128 (2005), relying on MCL 771.14,1 the
Court of Appeals stated that “for sentencing on multiple concurrent convictions, a
[presentence information report] would only be prepared for the highest crime class
felony conviction and would [not] be prepared for each of the defendant’s multiple
convictions.” But in People v Johnigan, 265 Mich App 463, 472 (2005), relying on MCL
777.21(2),2 the Court of Appeals stated that, despite the requirement for the probation
department to score the guidelines only for the highest crime class, “the sentencing court
must score the guidelines for the remaining crimes as well.” (Emphasis added.) Thus,
these two decisions may impose competing obligations with respect to the number of
sentencing investigation reports when a defendant has multiple convictions. We do not,
however, reach the issue here because defendant has not preserved it.
1
MCL 771.14 provides in part:
(2) A presentence investigation report prepared under subsection (1)
shall include all of the following:
* * *
(e) For a person to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines set
forth in chapter XVII, all of the following:
(i) For each conviction for which a consecutive sentence is
authorized or required, the sentence grid in part 6 of chapter XVII that
contains the recommended minimum sentence range.
(ii) Unless otherwise provided in subparagraph (i), for each crime
having the highest crime class, the sentence grid in part 6 of chapter XVII
that contains the recommended minimum sentence range.
(iii) Unless otherwise provided in subparagraph (i), the computation
that determines the recommended minimum sentence range for the crime
having the highest crime class.
(iv) A specific statement as to the applicability of intermediate
sanctions, as defined in section 31 of chapter IX.
(v) The recommended sentence.
2
MCL 777.21(2) provides:
If the defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, subject to
section 14 of chapter IX, score each offense as provided in this part.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
June 30, 2006 _________________________________________
l0627 Clerk