Sentencing; Scoring of OVs 3 & 19; MCL 777.33(1) & (2)(b); People v. Laidler; People v. Biddles; Consideration of the PSIR; People v. McChester; People v. Callon; MCL 777.49(c); People v. Hershey (On Remand); People v. Sours; People v. Passage; People v. Barbee; Interfering with the rendering of emergency services; People v. Portellos; Departure sentence; People v. Lockridge; Proportionality; People v. Milbourn; People v. Walden; People v. Steanhouse; People v. Carlson; People v. Dixon-Bey

The court held that the trial court did not err in scoring 100 points for OV 3 and 10 points for OV 19, and did not base its sentencing decision on inaccurate information. Further, its upward departure sentence was reasonable, and it adequately articulated its reasons for the sentence. Defendant was sentenced to 10 to 40 years for his plea-based delivery of less than 50 grams of heroin conviction. He admitted he bought the drugs and shared them with his friend, C, who died of an overdose. In scoring OV 3, the trial court concluded that C “died from using the drugs defendant gave him. Defendant” contended that this determination “rested on inaccurate or false information because he used the same heroin and did not die. Defendant contends without evidentiary support that the drugs he gave [C] did not cause his overdose and death.” But there was no evidence that C “would have died without the use of the drugs given him by defendant. Although other drugs may have contributed to [C’s] death, the trial court could reasonably conclude that, but for the drugs defendant” provided him, C “would not have died. The trial court drew reasonable inferences from the record evidence that established that the drugs defendant gave [C] served as a cause in fact of his death. Defendant did not” offer any evidence calling that conclusion into question. The fact that “defendant, an admitted longtime heroin addict, did not die from the heroin he injected, does not require the conclusion that the drugs he gave [C] could not serve as a cause in fact of” his death. The court held that his 100-point score for OV 3 fit “squarely within the parameters of the statute.” As to OV 19, he did not “honestly answer the 911 dispatcher and the first responders’ questions.” He only told them that C “possibly used drugs but denied witnessing his doing any drugs. Defendant later admitted to the police that [C] overdosed inside defendant’s house” on the couch. But the first responders found C in the driveway when they arrived. The trial court could reasonably deduce that he moved C’s body, disturbing the crime scene. Thus, the 10-point score was proper. The court also held that “the trial court’s reasons for imposing an upward departure sentence were supported in the record and not adequately addressed by the sentencing guidelines.” Affirmed.