Sentencing; Scoring 10 points for OV 4 (psychological harm); MCL 777.34; People v Armstrong; Fear created solely during the offense; People v White; People v Lampe; Right to be sentenced on accurate information; People v Francisco; Inapplicability of Michigan’s rules of evidence at sentencing; MRE 1101(b)(3)

The court held that the trial court did not err by scoring OV 4 at 10 points because a preponderance of the evidence indicated the victim’s (C) fear and feeling of being unsafe continued beyond the robbery itself. Further, because the trial court used accurate information in calculating the guidelines, resentencing was not required. Defendant pled guilty to armed robbery and felony-firearm. He was sentenced to 168 months to 30 years for the former. In a prior appeal, the court reversed and remanded. It found that although the trial court erred by scoring 10 points for OV 4 based on the victim impact statement provided by a second victim (G), defendant’s participation in the armed robbery of C might reasonably support the scoring of OV 4. On remand, the trial court considered whether C’s victim impact statement supported the scoring of OV 4 at 10 points and found that it did. In the present appeal, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court violated his right to be sentenced on accurate information as there was insufficient evidence to score points for OV 4. “[T]he trial court found that the victim was always in fear of the defendant’s return, that his fear was not fleeting or arose only when defendant engaged in the actions that led to his convictions.” Further, C stated that “whenever he heard noises he is fearful that he will be subjected to harm as it signals to him the possibility of the defendant’s return.” Finally, the trial court held that “‘not only does [the victim] have scared thinking, but “scared thinking always” . . . all the time . . . ’” Affirmed.