Sentencing; Due process; Whether defendant had an opportunity to review the presentence investigation report (PSIR) before sentencing; MCR 6.425(D)(1)(a); People v Maben; Right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information; People v Daniels; Right of allocution; MCR 6.425(D)(1)(c) & (E)(1)(c); People v Kammeraad; Predetermined sentence; People v McNeal

The court held that defendant was not denied the opportunity to review the PSIR with her attorney prior to sentencing, or her right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information. It also found she was not denied her right of allocution. She pled no contest to AWIM. After violating the terms of her plea agreement by absconding, the trial court ruled that her original sentence was forfeited. It eventually sentenced her to 15 to 30 years. On appeal, the court rejected her argument that the trial court violated MCR 6.425(D)(1)(a) and her right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information by failing to determine on the record that she had the opportunity to read and review the PSIR in the week prior to sentencing when she was in jail. “Arguably, the trial court had a basis to ‘determine’ that defendant had this opportunity because her attorney . . . communicated to the [trial] court that defendant recently had surgery, and he was unlikely to be aware of this fact unless he had discussions concerning the contents of the PSIR with defendant before sentencing. By then proceeding to impose sentence, the trial court implicitly may have determined that defendant had an opportunity to read and discuss the PSIR, thus satisfying MCR 6.425(D)(1)(a).” In addition, “even if required, the trial court’s failure to directly ask and confirm that defendant had the opportunity to read and discuss the PSIR was harmless error because she” admitted she had that opportunity. The court also rejected her claim that the trial court erred by announcing part of her sentence—three additional years—before she was given an opportunity for allocution. “Although the trial court may have decided to increase the sentence that it ultimately gave defendant based on her behavior at sentencing, it did not announce what her sentence would be.” The trial court announced it “would add time to her sentence because of her disrespectful behavior while the prosecution was describing the life-altering impacts that the violent attack had on the victim and his family. In doing so, [it] did not impose a sentence or announce what her sentence would be. Rather, it simply warned [her] that her disrespectful behavior was going to affect her ultimate sentence. This did not violate her right to a meaningful allocution. Importantly, defendant was allowed to address the court for as long as she wanted before being sentenced.” Affirmed.