Opinion ID: 842998
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Although OV 1 was incorrectly scored, that error does not entitle defendant to resentencing. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that defense counsel's stipulation waived the error under Carter, supra at 215, 612 N.W.2d 144. Indeed, defense counsel's express approval of the OV 1 score  extinguished any error. Id. (emphasis added). Defendant could have claimed ineffective assistance of counsel but did not do so in the trial court, the Court of Appeals, or this Court. Generally, an appellate court does not address issues that were not raised below or on appeal. Tingley v. Kortz, 262 Mich.App. 583, 588, 688 N.W.2d 291 (2004). The majority not only raises the issue, it also decides the issue in defendant's favor. It does so without offering the prosecution a chance to respond or remanding for a Ginther [2] hearing. At the very least, the prosecution should be afforded notice and an opportunity to respond before the majority hands it a loss by extending new and heretofore unknown standards. Rudimentary fairness demands as much. This order also extends the holding of Kimble, supra . In Kimble, supra at 309, 312, 684 N.W.2d 669, an offense variable was misscored, so the defendant's resulting minimum sentence exceeded the appropriate sentencing guidelines range. The defendant raised the scoring error for the first time in the Court of Appeals. Id. at 312, 684 N.W.2d 669. This Court held that because the defendant's sentence fell outside the appropriate guidelines range, his sentence was appealable, even though the scoring error was unpreserved. Id. Nonetheless, the defendant was required to satisfy the plain error standard set forth in People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 763, 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999). Kimble, supra at 312, 684 N.W.2d 669. Kimble is distinguishable from this case for two reasons. First, Kimble's unpreserved scoring issue was appealable because his sentence fell outside the appropriate guidelines range. Here, defendant's incorrectly scored minimum sentence (126 months) is not only within the appropriate guidelines range (108 to 225 months), it is also at the lower end of that range. In Kimble, supra at 310-311, 684 N.W.2d 669, this Court held that under MCL 769.34(10), [3] if the sentence is within the appropriate guidelines sentence range, it is only appealable if there was a scoring error or inaccurate information was relied upon in determining the sentence and the issue was raised at sentencing, in a motion for resentencing, or in a motion to remand.  (Emphasis added.) Defendant did not raise the scoring error at sentencing, in a motion for resentencing, or in a motion to remand. Therefore, under Kimble, supra, defendant's sentence is not appealable. Second, in Kimble, the defendant forfeited the scoring error by failing to raise it in the trial court. This Court held that the plain error standard applies to such unpreserved claim of error. Id. at 312, 684 N.W.2d 669. In the instant case, however, defendant waived the scoring issue by stipulating to his OV 1 score. Waiver has been defined as the `intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.' It differs from forfeiture, which has been explained as the failure to make the timely assertion of a right. One who waives his rights under a rule may not then seek appellate review of a claimed deprivation of those rights, for his waiver has extinguished any error. Mere forfeiture, on the other hand, does not extinguish an error. [ Carter, supra at 215, 612 N.W.2d 144 (citations omitted).] Kimble, supra, does not afford defendant relief. The principle of Kimble does not apply to waivers of error. Defendant remains free to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a motion for relief from judgment under MCR 6.500 et seq., in which the question of ineffective assistance of counsel can be entertained in a proper forum for the receipt of proofs involving counsel's performance. YOUNG, J., joins the statement of CORRIGAN, J.