Sentencing; Scoring of OV 14; MCL 777.44(1)(a) & (2)(a); To “lead”; People v Dickinson; Resentencing; People v Francisco

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment (see eJournal # 85999 in the 7/7/26 edition), vacated defendant’s sentences, and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. It held that the trial court erred in scoring OV 14 and that defendant was entitled to resentencing because correcting the score changed the applicable guidelines range. The court agreed with Judge Bazzi’s dissent that, “considering the entire criminal transaction pursuant to MCL 777.44(2)(a), there” was insufficient record evidence “to support the trial court’s determination that defendant was ‘a leader in a multiple-offender situation’ for purposes of” OV 14 pursuant to “MCL 777.44(1)(a) under either of the trial court’s alternate rationales for assigning points. For purposes of scoring OV 14, the Court of Appeals” held in Dickinson that “to ‘lead’ is defined in relevant part as, in general, guiding, preceding, showing the way, directing, or conducting.” In addition, it has “directed trial courts to ‘consider whether the defendant acted first or gave directions or was otherwise a primary causal or coordinating agent’ for purposes of analyzing OV 14.” Assuming without deciding that this case involved a multiple offender situation, there was “insufficient evidence that defendant directed, coordinated, or guided any other offender in the criminal transactions that occurred.” Thus, the trial court clearly erred in finding “by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] was a leader in a multiple offender situation.” Given that he has an early release date in November, the court directed “the trial court to expedite proceedings on remand.”