Scoring of PRV 6; Defendant’s relationship to the criminal justice system; MCL 777.56(1)(b) & (c); Scoring of OV 9; MCL 777.39; Correction of the sentencing information report (SIR)

Holding that the trial court properly assessed PRV 6 at 15 points, the court affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence, but remanded for the limited purpose of correcting typographical errors in her SIR. While serving a prison sentence, she was transported to a hospital and admitted to its psychiatric unit after attempting suicide. While there, she falsely reported that the deputy supervising her sexually assaulted her. After she recanted her allegation, she was charged with false report of a felony and eventually pleaded no contest. The trial court denied her subsequent motion to withdraw her plea challenging its imposition of mandatory consecutive sentencing and failure to give her credit for time served. On appeal, she challenged the trial court’s assessment of PRV 6 and an inaccurate SIR. The court disagreed with her first argument, but agreed there was a question as to whether the SIR was correct. She claimed “no points should have been assessed for [PRV 6] because she was on bond at the time she committed the underlying offense.” However, she “was still serving her prison sentence even though she was at the hospital when she committed the offense at issue.” As such, “the trial court properly assessed PRV 6 at 15 points.” As to her second claim, however, correction of the SIR was necessary because “the parties and trial court ultimately agreed to assess” OV 9 at 0 points, but the SIR still indicated 10 points. “There is no dispute that the trial court agreed to assess 0 points for OV 9 because there were no people placed in danger of injury or loss of life by the underlying offense. There is also no dispute that” it found “the correct sentencing range was 12 to 24 months. But the SIR . . . erroneously indicate[d] 10 points for OV 9 with the correct guideline minimum range of 12 to 24 months. Confusingly, while not noted by defendant, the SIR copies also differ as to whether OV 19 was assessed at 0 or 25 points.”