Sentencing; Scoring of 50 points for OV 15; Judgment of sentence (JOS)

The court affirmed defendant’s sentence but remanded for the ministerial task of correcting the JOS to accurately reflect that she was sentenced as a fourth offense habitual offender. She was sentenced to 10 to 25 years as a fourth offense habitual offender after a jury found her guilty of possession with intent to deliver meth. Defendant argued “that OV 15 was assessed incorrectly because there was no evidence that she transported [meth] across state lines.” The court found that the “trial court’s assessment of 50 points was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. [It] relied on four aspects of the record evidence against” her. It also noted that “the witness testified that she overheard defendant and codefendant discussing ‘how to get enough money to . . . secure the drugs and bring ’em to Michigan.’ The trial court clearly found this testimony credible.” Further, the meth “recovered from the witness’s house and defendant’s vehicle were contained in identical black cross-patterned plastic bags, which defendant also admitted she had at home in Wisconsin. During the trial, the State Trooper read numerous text and Facebook messages recovered from defendant’s phone that detailed her plan to pick up the [meth] from codefendant’s supplier in Wisconsin and bring it to codefendant in Michigan.” On this record, the court was “not definitely and firmly convinced the trial court made a mistake by assessing 50 points for OV 15.” However, defendant’s JOS “does not reflect that she was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender.” The trial court calculated her “sentence as a fourth offense habitual offender, and her sentence was of a length that included a fourth-offense habitual offender status.”