Opinion ID: 842331
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: harper

Text: In Harper, defendant preserved the constitutional challenge to his sentence by raising this issue in a motion for resentencing before the circuit court. Thus, as in Neder, our review must consider whether the alleged error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [71] The sentencing judge here exceeded the list of intermediate sanctions, and imposed a prison sentence on the basis of facts contained in the presentence investigation report (PSIR). Contrary to Justice Kelly's contention that Harper had no opportunity to present contrary evidence, post at 562, the judge permitted Harper and his attorney to review the PSIR and to challenge the accuracy of its contents, as required by MCL 771.14(5) and (6). The judge also specifically explained to Harper the importance of noting inaccuracies, saying: Now, sometimes they make mistakes on those reports and if they do it's important that you catch them. Mr. Harper, because we keep these reports for years and if there is a mistake now it could be used against you next year. . . . Harper stated that he had read the PSIR. When asked if he saw any mistakes, he pointed out that a prior felony conviction had not been included, previously, when his attorney estimated his PRV score. He agreed that he understood that the felony was properly added, however, and stated: I'm not contesting anything. . . . Defense counsel also specifically indicated that we ha[ve] reviewed this report, I have no additions, corrections or deletions to the report. [72] Now, on appeal, Harper makes no claim that his recordof parole revocations, absconding from parole, bench warrants for failures to appear, and run-ins with law enforcement in other statesis inaccurate. During his oral argument before this Court, he mounted a slight challenge to the sentencing judge's conclusion that he had ripped off a charity that was trying to do good for cold children. He claimed that [n]othing at the plea talked about stealing coats from children, adding that, although Old News Boys is a charity that served needy people . . ., there's lots of different needy people adult and children. . . . On this point, we simply note that, at the sentencing hearing, the president of Old News Boys explained that the organization served needy children and families who are less fortunate. Therefore, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts used by the sentencing judge to support Harper's sentence were uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that a jury would have reached the same result. [73] Indeed, like the defendant in Neder, Harper does not suggest that he would offer contrary evidence, particularly concerning the facts contained in his court records, if given the opportunity to do so. [74] Accordingly, if the judge is found to have violated Blakely at sentencing, any error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and does not require reversal.