Case Title: PEOPLE OF MI V MICHAEL RAY MUTCHIE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 121559

State: michigan

Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Date: 2003-04-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
_________________________________ 
 
Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 48909 
Chie f Justice 
Justices 
Maura D. Corrigan 
Michael F. Cavanagh 
Elizabeth A. Weaver 
Marilyn Kelly 
Clifford W. Taylor 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Opinion 
Stephen J. Markman 
FILED APRIL 1, 2003  
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,  
Plaintiff-Appellee,  
v 
No. 121559  
MICHAEL RAY MUTCHIE,  
Defendant-Appellant.  
MEMORANDUM OPINION  
Armed with a knife, the defendant raped the clerk of a  
grocery store in Hastings.  He then abducted her, but she was  
able to escape as he drove through Saranac.  
The defendant was charged with three counts of first­
degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of kidnaping.  
MCL 750.520b(1)(e), 750.349.  He pleaded guilty on all four  
counts of the information and was sentenced to concurrent  
terms of forty to one hundred years in prison for each CSC-I  
count and fifteen to twenty-five years in prison for  
kidnaping.
 The circuit court later denied a motion for  
resentencing.  
The defendant filed an application for leave to appeal,  
 
 
which the Court of Appeals granted, limited to his claim that  
the circuit court had erred in its decision to score 50 points  
under offense variable 11 of the sentencing guidelines for  
each of the CSC-I convictions.  MCL 777.41. The Court then  
affirmed. 251 Mich App 273; 650 NW2d 733 (2002).  
In its opinion, the Court of Appeals stated:  
After reviewing the record, we conclude that 
the scoring issue is moot because, even if there 
were error, resentencing is not warranted given the 
trial court’s remarks that it would have imposed 
the same sentences regardless of the scoring of OV 
11. [251 Mich 274.]  
Despite that correct statement, the Court of Appeals  
added several pages of dicta in which it presented a close  
analysis of OV 11, focusing on the instructions set forth in  
MCL 777.41(2):  
All of the above apply to scoring offense 
variable 11:  
(a)
 Score all sexual penetrations of the 
victim by the offender arising out of the  
sentencing offense.  
(b)
 Multiple sexual penetrations of the 
victim by the offender extending beyond the  
sentencing offense may be scored in offense  
variables 12 or 13.  
(c)  Do not score points for the 1 penetration 
that forms the basis of a first- or third-degree 
criminal sexual conduct offense.  
The Court of Appeals concluded that the circuit court  
correctly scored OV 11 in the present case.  
The defendant has applied to this Court for leave to  
appeal, urging that we overturn the judgment of the Court of  
2  
 
Appeals with regard to OV 11.  
We affirm, but find it unnecessary to express an opinion  
regarding the proper interpretation of OV 11.  As the Court of  
Appeals observed, the circuit 
court 
clearly 
expressed 
its view  
that the sentences imposed in this case were the proper  
sentences without regard to how OV 11 might be scored.  The  
forty-year minimum sentence imposed for each CSC-I conviction  
was a departure above the recommended range in any event, and  
the court expressly stated the substantial and compelling  
reasons that justified the departure.1  
The analysis of OV 11 offered by the Court of Appeals was  
dictum.  Because the sentences imposed by the circuit court  
were proper and were properly explained, we affirm the  
judgments of the Court of Appeals and the circuit court.2  MCR  
7.302(F)(1).  
Maura D. Corrigan 
Michael F. Cavanagh 
Elizabeth A. Weaver  
Marilyn Kelly 
Clifford W. Taylor 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Stephen J. Markman  
1 “A court may depart from the appropriate sentence range 
established under the sentencing guidelines set forth in [MCL 
777.1 et seq.] if the court has a substantial and compelling 
reason for that departure and states on the record the reasons 
for departure.” MCL 769.34(3).  
2 We have reviewed the defendant’s other claims of error  
related to the sentence imposed by the circuit court, and we 
find no basis for resentencing or other relief.  
3