Sentencing; OV 10; Exploitation of vulnerable victim; “Predatory conduct”; MCL 777.40(1)(a) & (3)(a); People v Cannon; People v Huston; OV 12; Contemporaneous felonious criminal acts; MCL 777.42(1)(b); Kidnapping; MCL 750.349(1)(c); CSC III; MCL 750.520d(1)(b); OV 19; Interference with administration of justice; MCL 777.49(1)(c); Resentencing; People v Francisco; De novo resentencing; People v Lampe

The court held that defendant was entitled to resentencing because OV 19 had to be reduced and the guidelines range changed, while OV 12 was properly scored at least 10 points. Defendant pled guilty to extortion and no contest to attempted CSC III after threatening to falsely accuse her former boyfriend, a parolee, of molesting her granddaughter unless he had sex with her. The trial court scored OV 10 at 15 points, OV 12 at 10 points, and OV 19 at 25 points, producing a 51-to-85-month minimum guidelines range. On appeal, the court first accepted the prosecution’s concession that OV 19 should have been scored at 10 points because defendant did not threaten the security of a court or penal institution, but instead attempted to interfere with justice by making a false police report. Because that change reduced the range, resentencing was required. The court also held that the trial court erred in its OV 10 reasoning because defendant’s threats based on the victim’s parolee status were not “preoffense conduct” but were instead the very acts of extortion. However, because resentencing is de novo, the trial court may consider the prosecution’s alternate luring theory on remand. The court next held that OV 12 was properly scored at a minimum of 10 points because defendant committed two contemporaneous felonious acts against a person by kidnapping the victim and coercing him to perform cunnilingus, beyond the conduct underlying the attempted CSC III conviction. Vacated and remanded.