Sentencing; Scoring of OV 19; MCL 777.49(a); People v Dixon; “Jail”; MCL 801.251(4); “Jail facility”; MCL 791.262; MCL 141.472; “Holding cell”; MCL 791.262(a); “Holding center”; MCL 791.262(b)

The court held that the trial court did not err by scoring 25 points for OV 19. Defendant pled guilty to knowingly or intentionally possessing meth after a small bag containing 0.33 grams of meth fell from his pocket onto a jail’s booking room floor. He had just been arrested for absconding from parole and was out on bond for two additional offenses. He was sentenced to 38 months to 12 years. On appeal, the court rejected his claim that the trial court improperly assigned 25 points under OV 19, thus extending his maximum sentence. He contended his conduct did not threaten the security of the jail as he was not actually in the jail when the offense occurred, and that the trial court wrongly considered postoffense conduct, noting he warned the officers of the drugs’ presence when they fell out of his pocket. First, various definitions under “Michigan law establish that the booking phase of detention remains a significant part of the overall detention process. As the facilities used for booking constitute an important component of the detention facility, defendant was legally in the jail when the meth[] fell out of his pocket. Thus,” there was no merit in his argument on this point. In addition, he was “in the ‘administration of justice’ phase when the meth[] fell from his pocket.” And when the offense took place, he “was being placed in jail for a separate, underlying offense, namely parole absconding. That the underlying charge did not involve a threat to the jail and that it was eventually dropped per a plea bargain is irrelevant.” Because the assignment of OV 19 “points contemplates postoffense conduct, the trial court acted properly in assessing defendant’s conduct while in police custody.” Finally, his contention that his conduct did not constitute a threat to the jail’s security also lacked merit, notwithstanding his warning to officers about the drugs. “By bringing the drugs within reach of the officers and having the drugs in his possession while in the jail, defendant posed a security risk to the jail that could have been very serious if he had managed to get past the booking area without their presence being detected.” Affirmed.