Sentencing; Resentencing; Mootness; Minimum sentence served; People v Rutherford; Offense variable (OV) 16; Departure sentence; Presentence investigation report (PSIR); Updated PSIR; MCL 771.14(1); MCR 6.425(A)(1); People v Odom; Harmless error; People v McAllister; Abandoned habitual-offender notice claim

The court held that defendant-Squires’s sentencing challenges to OV scoring and the departure sentence were moot, his updated-PSIR argument did not require resentencing, and his habitual-offender notice issue was abandoned. Defendant was resentenced as a third-offense habitual offender after initially being sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender, and he later appealed the resentencing order. On appeal, the court first held that his OV 16 and departure-sentence claims were moot because he had been released on parole and had “already served his minimum sentence,” leaving the court unable to provide a remedy. The court addressed his updated-PSIR argument because collateral consequences could remain, but held that reversal was unwarranted because “‘it is not particularly important how the information gets before the trial court’” so long as it has “‘the relevant information available for sentencing.’” It reasoned that defendant’s allocution gave the trial court the positive updates that would have appeared in an updated PSIR. Finally, the court held that his habitual-offender notice claim was abandoned because he listed it but failed to advance argument or supporting authority. Affirmed.