-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 21, 2016

v No. 325983 Oakland Circuit Court ANTONIO DEVLE SMITH, LC No. 2014-250336-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: J ANSEN , P.J., and S ERVITTO and M. J. K ELLY , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Defendant, Antonio Devle Smith, appeals by delayed leave grant ed the trial court’s sentence after he pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled sub stance with intent to deliver, MCL 333.7401(2)(b)( ii ), and possessing marijuana, MCL 333.7403(2)(d). The trial cou rt sentenced him as a third habitual offender, MCL 769.13, to serve 16 month s to 14 years in prison for the controlled substance conviction and to serve one year in prison for the possession of marijuana conviction. Because Smith has not demonstrated that the trial court erred, we affirm.

Smith contends that the trial court erred when it denied his m otion to correct the judgment of sentence because it was invalid, see MCR 6.429(A), or, in the alternative, there was a mistake, see MCR 6.435. This Court reviews de novo a trial c ourt’s interpretation and application of statutes and court rules. Brecht v Hendry , 297 Mich App 732, 736; 825 NW2d 110 (2012).

Smith pleaded guilty to violating MCL 333.7401, and, as part o f his plea, he agreed that he possessed the controlled substa nce with the intent to “share . . . with other people, either friends or acquaintances . . . .” H e contends that the judgmen t of sentence contains a clerical error because the shorthand label for his crime lists delivery instead of possession with intent to deliver. Additionally, he argues that the Prosecuting Attorney s Coordinating Council (PACC) code of “333.74012B-A” listed on the judgment of sentence shoul d be changed to MCL 333.7401(2)(b)( ii ) to “more accurately reflect” his plea. He maintains this is necessary to show his actual crime to any prospective employer, company, person, court or law enforcement agency, and states that an accu rate description might also affe ct parole.

It is undisputed that possession with the intent to deliver en compasses possession with the intent to “share.” See MCL 333.7105(1); People v Steele

, 429 Mich 13, 25-26; 412 NW2d 206 (1987). Accordingly, when Smith agreed that he possessed t he substance with the intent to-2- share it, he admitted that he possessed the substance with the intent to deliver contrary to MCL 333.7401. See MCR 6.302(D)(1). Nevertheless, Smith would have this Court divide the statute into separate specific parts and require trial courts to fashio n separate labels to reflect all the ways that a person might violate the statute. However, he has not identified the legal or factual basis for this argument. An appellant “may not merely announce their position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for their clai ms; nor may they give issues cursory treatment with little or no c itation of supporting authority.” Vanderwerp v Plainfield Charter Twp , 278 Mich App 624, 633; 752 NW2d 479 (2008). Consequently, he has abandoned this argument on appeal. In any even t, the label used on the judgme nt of sentence correctly describes the crime to which Smith pleaded guilty, even if it does not re flect the specific factual basis for his particular violation. Under MCR 6.427(3), the judgment of sentence must include “the crime for which the defendant was convicted,” but the crime can be id entified without identifying the specific subset of facts gi ving rise to the conviction.

Smith has also failed to show that the judgment of sentence re quires correction under MCR 6.429(A) or MCR 6.435. He has not demonstrated that the ju dgment of sentence was invalid. See People v Whalen , 412 Mich 166, 169-170; 312 NW2d 638 (1981). Further, Smith has not demonstrated that the judgment of sentence or the prese ntence investigation report contained inaccurate information, or that the judge misspoke, o r the clerk made a typing error, or that there was a clerical error. People v Miles

, 454 Mich 90, 96-97; 559 NW2d 299 (1997); MCR 6.435(A).

We also do not agree that the judgment of sentence must be cor rected because it uses a PACC code to identify the crime, or because the code appears in the box that could be used for a citation to the compiled laws. PACC codes are routinely used i n sentencing, and a review of PACC 333.74012B-A shows that it appl ies to the possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver cont rary to MCL 333.7401(2)(b)( ii ). There is no n eed for clarification where the conviction is clearly designated by the PACC code. See People v Kuchciak , 467 Mich 873; 651 NW2d 67 (2002).

The trial court did not err whe n it denied Smith’s motion to c orrect the judgment.

Affirmed.

/s/ Kathleen Jansen /s/ Deborah A. Servitto /s/ Michael J. Kelly