Sentencing; Whether a prior conviction that is not otherwise scorable under the prior record variables (PRVs) of the guidelines may be considered in applying the so-called "10-year gap" rule of MCL 777.50; Statutory interpretation; The in pari materia rule; People v. Stephan; People v. Webb; In re Complaint of Southfield Against Ameritech MI; Contrasting the legislative guidelines with the previous judicial guidelines; People v. Reyna

Concluding that a prior conviction that is not otherwise scorable under the PRVs of the sentencing guidelines may be considered in applying the so-called "10-year gap" rule of MCL 777.50, the court held that the trial court properly scored the guidelines. Defendant was convicted of second-degree home invasion for an offense committed in 2014. He was sentenced within the guidelines recommendation, as scored by the trial court, to 3 to 15 years in prison. He "has an extensive criminal record" dating back to 1984, but acquired "no convictions at all from 2001 until 2012, with the exception of 2006 conviction related to an offense committed in 1993. Depending on whether that 2006 conviction" was considered in applying the provisions of MCL 777.50, his prior record level under the guidelines, and thus, the recommended minimum sentence range, would change significantly. If it was considered, then there was no 10-year period in which he went without a conviction and PRV 5 would be scored at 20 points for having 7 or more prior misdemeanor convictions. This was how the trial court scored the guidelines. Defendant's argument was based upon the fact that the offense for which he was convicted in 2006 was not itself a scorable offense under PRV 5. He argued that, because the two statutes must be read in pari materia, "only offenses scorable under MCL 777.55 may be considered in applying the 10-year gap rule under MCL 777.50 in determining which offenses may be scored under PRV 5." The court disagreed, holding that while "MCL 777.50 and MCL 777.55 are obviously related, they nonetheless address slightly different issues. Those issues reflect different policy choices made by the Legislature. And those policy choices do not require that the same convictions be considered in order to avoid a conflict between the two statutes, even when read" in pari materia. The court also rejected defendants argument contrasting the legislative guidelines with the judicial guidelines, in which he noted that the judicial guidelines referred to "any conviction," while the legislative guidelines reference a "prior conviction." Affirmed.