Sentencing; Principle that the trial court is required to score the offense of the highest crime class when a defendant has multiple convictions & the sentences are concurrent; People v. Lopez; MCL 777.16m; MCL 469.34(2); MCL 777.22(5); People v. Bemer; A minimum sentence within the appropriate guidelines range; MCL 769.34(10); Claim the trial court sentenced defendant outside an agreed upon range without allowing him an opportunity to withdraw his plea; People v. Nixten; People v. Swirles; Claim that the trial court erred in sua sponte amending the judgment of sentence (JOS); People v. Holder; MCR 6.435; Court rule interpretation; People v. Howell; Use of a dictionary to define “oversight”; People v. Lewis; MCL 769.1h(1); MCL 768.7a; A “clerical error”; People v. Peck; Sentencing Information Report (SIR); Felon in possession (FIP)

[Unpublished opinion.] The court held that the trial court followed the proper procedures in calculating the defendant’s recommended minimum guidelines range and imposing a minimum sentence within it. Further, the trial court did not agree to sentence him to a specific range and the prosecution did not agree to recommend one. Finally, the trial court did not commit plain error in sua sponte amending the JOS to correct a clerical error. Defendant pleaded guilty in these consolidated cases to resisting arrest causing injury, FIP, and felony-firearm. The court rejected his claim that the trial court disregarded the guidelines. “When a defendant has multiple convictions and the sentences for the convictions are concurrent, the trial court is required to score the offense of the highest crime class.” Resisting arrest causing injury is a class F offense, while FIP is a class E offense. Thus, the inquiry was whether the trial court sentenced him within the recommended minimum range for his FIP conviction. It scored the applicable OVs and PRVs for this conviction. According to the SIR, “defendant had a PRV total of 62 points, and an OV total of 50 points.” Thus, his OV level was V, and his PRV level was E. “The range for such an offender is 19 to 38 months” and his 36-month sentence fell within it. The court next rejected his claim that “the trial court improperly sentenced him outside of an agreed upon range of 10 to 23 months” without giving him an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Finally, he argued that the trial court erred by sua sponte amending the JOS to reflect that his parole sentence was consecutive to the felony-firearm conviction and concurrent to his sentences for resisting arrest causing injury and FIP. A clerical error exists in a JOS “when the intent of the trial court can be determined from the sentencing hearing and the parties are aware of the trial court’s intent.” Both parties at the time of sentencing knew of “defendant’s status as a parolee and the trial court’s intent to impose a consecutive sentence for defendant’s parole.” The failure to address whether his “new sentences were consecutive to or concurrent with his parole sentence was an omission or oversight – something that the trial court ‘left out’ or ‘failed to include’ – in its original” JOS. Affirmed.