Sentencing; Acquitted conduct; People v Beck; Rational-jury standard; People v Brown; OV 1; MCL 777.31(a); OV 3; MCL 777.33(1)(d); Proportionality; Within-guidelines sentence; PSIR correction; MCR 6.425(D)(2)(a); MCL 771.14(5) & (6)

The court held that the trial court did not improperly rely on acquitted conduct in scoring OVs 1 and 3, defendant’s top-of-the-guidelines sentence was proportionate and reasonable, but his PSIR had to be corrected to reflect rulings made at sentencing. He was convicted of felon-in-possession and felony-firearm but acquitted of AWIM, unarmed robbery, and the related felony-firearm count after he took a gun from former supervisor M during a struggle and the gun discharged, grazing M. On appeal, defendant argued that scoring 25 points for OV 1 improperly treated him as responsible for conduct underlying his acquitted charges. The court disagreed because defendant admitted the gun discharged while he possessed it but maintained it was accidental. Thus, the discharge toward M “was ‘not, in a practical sense, put in dispute at trial,’” and was consistent with acquittals based on a lack of intent to kill or permanently deprive M of the gun. A rational jury could acquit defendant of AWIM and robbery “while still finding that he accidentally discharged the gun toward” M. The same reasoning supported 10 points for OV 3 because M sustained injuries requiring medical treatment, and the injury occurring during defendant’s illegal possession was not inconsistent with the acquittals. The court also held that he failed “to meet his burden of overcoming the presumption that his top-of-guidelines 30-month minimum sentence was proportionate and, thus, reasonable.” He initiated and reinitiated the confrontation, took the loaded gun after a struggle, pointed it at M’s head, and followed M toward the gas station while still armed. But the trial court failed to ensure that the PSIR reflected several successful sentencing objections. Because a PSIR “‘follows the defendant to prison’ and” can affect security classification or parole, it must accurately reflect the trial court’s rulings. The court affirmed the sentence and remanded solely for correction of the PSIR.