Sentencing; Presumption that the information contained in a presentence investigation report (PSIR) is accurate unless effectively challenged; People v. Lloyd; Principle that either party may challenge the accuracy or relevancy of information contained in the PSIR at the sentencing hearing; MCL 771.14(6); Principle that the sentencing court must respond to challenges to the accuracy of information in a PSIR but has wide latitude in how to do so; People v. Spanke; Principle that the trial court must strike challenged information it finds is inaccurate or irrelevant from the PSIR before sending it to the Department of Corrections (DOC); MCR 6.425(E)(2)(a)

The court held that the trial court should have evaluated the merits of the information contained in the defendant’s PSIR. He was convicted of two counts of CSC III and was sentenced as fourth offense habitual offender to concurrent prison terms of 22 to 40 years. The court previously affirmed his convictions, but remanded for resentencing because of an error in scoring the guidelines. On remand, the trial court again sentenced him to 22 to 40 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the court agreed that the trial court erred in not properly addressing the merits of his claim that the allegation in his PSIR that he assaulted the victim after she testified was not true. It noted that during the resentencing, defendant denied that he assaulted the victim during the criminal proceedings, and asserted that “the allegation was that the assault took place after the victim testified against him, not before she testified, and that the case based on the allegation was dismissed.” It further noted that the trial court accepted his “time line and noted that there was no conviction, but stated that it believed it could ‘take into consideration[] the allegation that was done.’” The court found that the trial court “should have evaluated the merits of the information presented in the PSIR and addressed defendant’s challenge to its accuracy. Although the trial court accepted defendant’s version of when the assault was alleged to have occurred during the time line of the criminal prosecution, and stated its understanding that no conviction had resulted from the allegation, it nonetheless relied on the challenged information in resentencing defendant without clearly indicating that it found the allegation to be accurate.” Remanded for resentencing.