-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 10, 2015

v No. 322615 Bay Circuit Court RYAN PATRICK JAMES, LC No. 12-011012-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: G ADOLA , P.J., and H OEKSTRA and M. J. K ELLY , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Following a plea of no contest, d efendant was sentenced to con current prison terms of 75 to 180 months for operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing death, MCL 257.625(4)(a), 75 to 180 months for failure to stop at the scene of an accident when at fault resulting in death, MCL 257.617(3), and 40 to 60 months for operating a motor vehic le while intoxicated causing serious injury, MCL 257.625(5). D efendant appeals by leave gra nted from an order of the circuit court denying his motion to correct his presentence investigati on report (PSIR). 1 We affirm.

This prosecution stems from a d eadly automobile accident. Whi le intoxicated, defendant crossed the center line of North Shore Road in Pinconning Towns hip and struck another vehicle, which resulted in the death of the other driver and serious inj ury to one of the decedent’s passengers. Defendant left the scene of the accident and troop ers from the Michigan State Police later located defendant at his residence.

State Trooper Justin Kemerer completed an incident report that included two sections describing statements defendant made the evening of the acciden t. Kemerer labeled one section “CONFESSION” and labeled the ot her “TRANSPORT/ADDITIONAL STATEM ENTS.” Under the “CONFESSION” heading, Kemerer reported that another s tate trooper recorded an interview with defendant in which defendant admitted that he dr ank three or four beers before driving that evening, and that he walked home from the scene of the crash. Under the “TRANSPORT/ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS” heading, Kemerer reported tha t he transported

1 People v James , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 28, 2014 (Docket No. 322615).-2- defendant to the hospital for a blood draw, and while en route, defendant “stated that ‘I drink and drive all the time’ but that not hing like this had ever happene d before.” Describing the circumstances surrounding the eve nt, defendant’s PSIR stated th e following:

As Kemerer transported the defe ndant to the McLaren Bay Region Hospital in Bay City, Michigan for a blood draw, the defendant told Kemerer he consumed four 16 ounce cans of bee r prior to the vehicle collis ion on North Shore Road. . . . The defendant stated, “I drink and drive all the t ime but nothing like this has ever happened before.” T he defendant denies making th is statement.

At sentencing, defendant challe nged the accuracy of his PSIR. Specifically, he asserted that he never said, “I drink and drive all the time but nothing like this has ever happened before.” Defense counsel told the court, “ I have reviewed [the] transcri pt of the interview. [Defendant] did indicate that nothing like this has ever happened before. I did not hear him say, ‘I drink and drive all the time’ and he denies making that statement.” This statement was also the subject of defendant’s post-sentencing motion.

Defendant now challenges the court’s failure to remove the sta tement, “I drink and drive all the time,” from his PSIR. “We review the sentencing court’ s response to a claim of inaccuracies in defendant’s PSIR for an abuse of discretion.” People v Spanke , 254 Mich App 642, 648; 658 NW2d 504 (2003). “A trial court abuses its discr etion when it selects an outcome outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” People v Uphaus (On Remand) , 278 Mich App 174, 181; 748 NW2d 899 (2008).

The PSIR is an information-gathering tool for the sentencing c ourt. Morales v Mich Parole Bd , 260 Mich App 29, 45; 676 NW2d 221 (2003). The scope of the P SIR is broad and it must include “a complete description of the offense and the cir cumstances surrounding it.” MCR 6.425(A)(1)(b). We presume tha t the information in the PSI R is accurate, and the defendant “bears the burden of going forward with an effective challenge.” People v Lloyd , 284 Mich App 703, 705; 774 NW 2d 347 (2009). If the defendant meets this burden, “the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts ar e as the prosecution asserts.” Id

. When the accuracy of the information in the PSIR is challenged, the sentencing court must respond. Spanke , 254 Mich App at 648. However, th e court has wide latitude in responding to challenges and may “determine the accuracy of the information, accept the defendant’s version, or simply disregard the challenged information.” Id

.
Defendant’s assertion of error is predicated on a misconceptio n of the record. He argues that nowhere in the transcript of the recorded police interview did he make the statement, “I drink and drive all the time.” Defendant is correct. However, the PSIR makes clear that the challenged remark took place during a conversation defendant ha d with Trooper Kemerer as the officer was transporting him to the hospital, not during the re corded interview. Defendant’s assertion of error is without merit.

Further, contrary to defendant’s contention on appeal, the tri al court did not find that all factual statements in a police report must be included in the P SIR or that such statements are not subject to challenge. Rather, the trial court considered defen dant’s challenge, but found that the-3- PSIR’s inclusion of the objected to statement was proper given the credibility of the source. We discern no abuse of discretion i n the trial court’s denial of d efendant’s motion.

Affirmed.

/s/ Michael F. Gadola /s/ Joel P. Hoekstra /s/ Michael J. Kelly