Appellate jurisdiction following resentencing; MCR 7.203(A)(1); MCR 7.202(6)(b)(iii) & (b)(iv); Principle that the scope of a second appeal is limited by the scope of the remand

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s appeal after remand. He was convicted of AWIM, FIP of a firearm, FIP of ammunition, and felony-firearm, second offense. The trial court sentenced him as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent terms of 20 years to 20 years and 1 day for the assault conviction, and 2 to 5 for each FIP, to be served consecutively to a 5-year term for felony-firearm. In a prior appeal, the court affirmed his convictions, but remanded for resentencing because the trial court used an incorrect sentencing guidelines range. On remand, the trial court resentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent terms of 15 to 20 years for the assault conviction, and 2 to 5 for each FIP, to be served consecutively to a 5-year term for felony-firearm. The trial court later denied his motion to correct an invalid sentence and to vacate his convictions. In the present appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to vacate his convictions where he was indicted by a one-man grand jury and did not receive a preliminary exam. But the court found it lacked jurisdiction to consider this issue. “Despite the label attached to the motion, the motion did not seek to correct any sentence, but instead only challenged the validity of defendant’s convictions on the basis of an issue related to the initiation of charges. Because the scope of this appeal is limited by the scope of the remand, and defendant’s attack on the validity of his convictions is beyond the scope of the remand, it is not properly before us.” Affirmed.