Sentencing; Challenges to the imposition of lifetime electronic monitoring (LEM); Scope of remand; People v Canter; Scope of the second appeal after remand

Holding that defendant’s challenges to the imposition of LEM on resentencing were beyond the scope of its prior remand and thus, not properly before it in this second appeal, the court declined to address them and affirmed his sentence. He was convicted of CSC II. The court previously remanded for resentencing due to an error in scoring OV 7. The trial court resentenced him to 17 to 180 months, and LEM. He now argued “that LEM as a punishment constitutes an unconstitutional search, and cruel and unusual punishment.” But the court noted that its prior remand “was exclusively for resentencing with reference to a minimum-sentencing-guidelines range as adjusted with the correction of the scoring error identified.” The trial court strictly complied with this mandate, “revisiting its sentencing decision insofar as was warranted by the reassessment of OV 7. The original sentence included the same LEM requirement that defendant challenges in this appeal, but defendant did not take issue with it in his original claim of appeal.” Following the court’s remand, he again did not raise an issue as “to the LEM requirement. Even if he had, the trial court would properly have declined to consider it as lying outside the scope of the remand.” The court further noted the “limitation that applied on remand applies to this second appeal—'the scope of the second appeal is limited by the scope of the remand.’”