Sentencing; Whether defendant was entitled to resentencing without the habitual offender enhancement because the prosecution failed to comply with the notice filing requirements of the habitual offender statute (MCL 769.13(1) & (2)); People v. Head; Due process; People v. Walker; Harmless-error review; People v. Carines; MCR 2.613(A); MCL 769.26

The court held that while the prosecution failed to file a proof of service of the habitual offender notice, defendant was not entitled to resentencing because that error was harmless. He was convicted of felonious assault. He alleged that because the prosecution failed to comply with the notice filing requirements of the habitual offender statute (MCL 769.13(1) and (2)), he was entitled to resentencing without the habitual offender enhancement. The court disagreed. It held that this case was analogous to Head and Walker. The prosecution did not dispute “that it did not file a proof of service of the notice of its intent to enhance defendant’s sentence with the clerk of court, in violation of MCL 769.13(2). However, the felony complaint and the felony information both included the fourth-offense habitual offender charge, and defendant” did not allege that he did not receive those documents. Although he waived his arraignment, at his preliminary exam the prosecution asked the trial court to bind him over as a fourth-offense habitual offender. At the plea hearing, he pled “no contest to the habitual offender charge and stipulated to the factual basis for that charge. Further, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that the PSIR needed to be corrected because ‘it just [said] assault with a dangerous weapon, felonious assault. It should also [have said] the hab-4, and be a maximum penalty of 15 years.’ Defense counsel responded, ‘I agree, Your Honor.’ Notably, defendant has not challenged the substantive basis for his fourth-offense habitual offender status in the trial court or on appeal.” Affirmed.