Resentencing where a sentence was based on inaccurate information & exceeds the corrected guidelines range; Effect of the trial court indicating it would impose the same sentence on remand; People v Francisco; People v Lockridge; Compliance with MCR 6.425(D)(1)(e); Fundamental fairness; Remedy; United States v Crosby (2d Cir); Presentence investigation report (PSIR)

Holding that Francisco and Lockridge are not in conflict, the court concluded that “resentencing is required where a defendant’s sentence is based on inaccurate information and exceeds the corrected guidelines range” even if the trial court indicated it would impose the same sentence on remand. Thus, it reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment in part and remanded to the trial court for resentencing. Defendant was convicted of AWIM and other offenses. The trial court imposed what appeared to be a within-guidelines sentence of 360 to 600 months for AWIM. The prosecution later conceded that PRV 2 was erroneously scored. The parties disagreed about what the corrected guidelines range would be. The “trial court held that 360 months was the lowest minimum sentence it found to be appropriate and that it would impose the same minimum sentence regardless of the applicable guidelines range.” The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s sentence but remanded. On remand, the parties entered into a stipulated order providing that the proper guidelines range was 171 to 285 months. His AWIM sentence remained the same. The court considered whether its decision in Francisco, “which held that resentencing is required in” the circumstances here, was at odds with Lockridge, which “held that Michigan’s sentencing guidelines are discretionary.” The court found that the two cases are not in conflict and reaffirmed “Francisco’s conclusion that, when a sentencing court relies on an incorrectly calculated guidelines range, a defendant is entitled to be resentenced.” Thus, it held that defendant was entitled to resentencing, and “the Court of Appeals erred in affirming his sentence. On remand, the trial court must rescore the guidelines and reconsider the sentence in light of the corrected guidelines range but may, in its discretion, impose the same sentence if [it] finds it to be reasonable and proportionate. If the sentence imposed after resentencing is not within the guidelines range, the trial court must articulate the reasons for its departure.”

Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Bernstein concurred with the majority’s result, but wrote to explain his “disagreement on a fundamental point—the necessity of addressing whether” Francisco conflicts with Lockridge. He would decline to reach this question, finding that the error here was “much simpler in nature and does not require us to apply Francisco.”

Dissenting, Justice Zahra concluded the Court of Appeals correctly resolved the case by remanding for administrative correction of the PSIR. He found that resentencing was “unnecessary as the trial court clearly indicated it would have imposed the same sentence notwithstanding the inaccurate information.” He would impose “the more tailored remedy of a Crosby remand[.]”