Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

June 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 129841 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 129841 v COA: 264238 Oakland CC: 2004-195667-FH RHASIAON ROSS SMITH, 2004-196105-FH Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e September 14, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1 ), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for resentencing in light of People v Francisco , 474 Mich 82 (2006). On remand, Offense Variable 13 should be scored at zero. In all other resp ects, leave to appeal is DENIED.

C ORRIGAN , J., concurs and states as follows:

I concur in our Court’s order to remand for resentencing in light of People v Francisco , 474 Mich 82 (2006). I write separatel y to note an apparen t split at the Court of Appeals regarding the number of sentencing in formation reports that trial courts must prepare when a defendant has mu ltiple convictions. In an appropriate case and in the absence of legislative action, this Court ma y need to consider th is issue. Because defendant did not preserve the question, I would not address it in this case._______________________________________ __ 2

In People v Mack , 265 Mich App 122, 128 (2005), relying on MCL 771.14, 1 the Court of Appeals stated that “for senten cing on multiple conc urrent convictions, a [presentence information report] would only be prepared for the highest crime class felony conviction and would [not] be prep ared for each of the defendant’s multiple convictions.” But in People v Johnigan , 265 Mich App 463, 472 (2005), relying on MCL 777.21(2), 2 the Court of Appeals stated th at, despite the requirement for the probation department to score the guidelines only for the highest crime class, “the sentencing court must score the gu idelines for the remaining crimes as well.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, these two decisions may impose competing ob ligations with respect to the number of sentencing investigation reports when a defendant has multip le convictions. We do not, however, reach the issue here because defendant has not preserved it.

1 MCL 771.14 provides in p art: (2) A presentence investigation re port prepared under subsection (1) shall include all of the following: * * * (e) For a person to be sentenced und er the sentencing guidelines set forth in chapter XVII, all of the following: (i) For each convic tion for which a cons ecutive sentence is authorized or required, the sentence gr id in part 6 of chapter XVII that contains the recommended minimum sentence range. (ii) Unless otherwise provided in subparagraph (i), for each crime having the highest crime cl ass, the sentence grid in part 6 of chapter XVII that contains the recommended minimum sentence range. (iii) Unless otherwise provided in subparagraph (i), the computation that determines the recommended mi nimum sentence range for the crime having the highest crime class. (iv) A specific statement as to the applicability of intermediate sanctions, as defined in section 31 of chapter IX. (v) The recommended sentence.

2 MCL 777.21(2) provides: If the defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, subject to section 14 of chapter IX, score each offense as provide d in this part.

l0627 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 30, 2006
Clerk