Resentencing; Invalid sentence; People v Miles; MCR 6.429(A); Inaccurate information; PRV 6; MCL 777.56(1)(d); Use of current information; People v Triplett; No-contact order; Sentencing based on erroneous fact; Vindictiveness; People v Mazzie; Proportionality; PRV 1 (MCL 777.51); PRV 2 (MCL 777.52); Reassignment request; People v Walker

The court held that the trial court had authority to resentence defendant because the original sentence was based in part on inaccurate probation-status information, but the revised sentence was invalid because it relied on unsupported findings about a no-contact order. He pled no contest to felonious assault after stabbing his daughter’s boyfriend. The trial court initially sentenced him to 18 months to 4 years, but sua sponte resentenced him to a 24-month minimum after body-camera footage captured him telling his wife the complainant “better be gone.” On appeal, the court first held that the trial court’s changed view of defendant’s remorse did not itself authorize resentencing because a court cannot invalidate a sentence by “simply changing its mind.” But resentencing was permitted because the original sentence was based in part on the trial court’s mistaken belief that defendant had been on probation. The court next held that the revised sentence was invalid because the record did not support a finding that defendant violated the no-contact order. The complainant was not present, nearby, or aware of the remark, and any possible indirect message appeared directed to defendant’s daughter, who was not a protected person under the order. The court rejected defendant’s vindictiveness challenge because the trial court gave reasons reasonably related to the increase, and it rejected his proportionality challenge as abandoned. It also directed the trial court to correct or explain an apparent PRV 1 and PRV 2 double-counting issue. Vacated and remanded.