Sentencing; Whether People v White required a score of zero points for OV 4 (psychological injury to a victim); “Victim”; Crime Victim’s Rights Act (CVRA); Waiver

Considering the record as a whole, the court held that the trial court did not clearly err in scoring OV 4 at 10 points. Defendant-Bryant pled guilty to CSC II and was sentenced to 32 months to 15 years. He contended that the only evidence supporting the trial court’s “scoring decision was speculation from the child’s mother that her child suffered a serious psychological injury requiring treatment.” Bryant argued White required a score of zero points for OV 4. However, the scoring “decision was made after the child’s mother affirmed that, within two weeks after Bryant abused him, the child was in therapy” due to the sexual abuse. Because the trial court’s “decision was based on evidence of an actual occurrence of a serious psychological injury requiring professional treatment, White does not mandate a score of zero points in this case.” Further, to the extent Bryant found “error in the fact that the victim impact statement was improperly made by” the mother, his claim lacked merit. The mother was permitted to submit a victim impact statement under the CVRA. The trial “court may consider the victim impact statement—even a statement prepared by a victim’s parent—when” imposing sentence. Next, contrary to Bryant’s argument, the “mother did not speculate that her child had suffered a serious psychological injury.” Viewing her victim impact statement as a whole, it was “clear that she was not merely recounting hypothetical psychological harm to her child arising solely from the nature of the offense, nor was she merely speculating that he would be harmed in the future. Instead, she described the actual affect that Bryant’s actions had on her child.” Her observations indicated that “he had difficulty sleeping, that he is angry and sad, that he is afraid, that his ability to trust men had been diminished, that he had expressed a wish to die as a result of what Bryant did, that he is paranoid of being harmed again, and that he fears being alone. Moreover, because of Bryant’s actions, at the time of sentencing, the child was in therapy.” Although the trial court “made its decision to score OV 4 only on the basis that the child was in therapy as a result of Bryant’s sexual abuse of him, our review of the court’s scoring of OV 4 is not limited to the reasoning provided by the trial court.” Affirmed.