Court Opinion

ID: 9670620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:23:31.278154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.669186
License: Public Domain

Michael J. Kelly, P.J.
(concurring). I believe *288the majority in People v Polus, 197 Mich App 197; 495 NW2d 402 (1992), correctly characterized the issue addressed in People v Warner, 190 Mich App 26; 475 NW2d 397 (1991), as whether uncontroverted evidence in the presentence report may be used to score ov 12. The defendant merely argued that the lower court improperly scored points under ov 12 for the penetration involved in the subject offense. My reading of Warner indicates that the Court did not zero in on the specific issue whether prior incidents of sexual penetration reported in the presentence report may be considered in scoring ov 12. The only mention of prior penetrations in Warner is buried in a block quotation of the lower court’s decision in that case.
I think both opinions in Polus and the majority opinion in this case incorrectly assess the Warner Court’s treatment of prior sexual penetrations in terms of whether or not it is dicta. Because Warner never addressed the issue, there is nothing to debate with respect to dicta. Rather, Warner is simply inapplicable.
Accordingly, Polus, which did directly address the issue of prior penetrations with respect to the scoring of ov 12, applies in this case. Under Polus, the trial court should not have considered prior penetrations between defendant and the victim in scoring ov 12. I would follow the holding in Polus. Consideration of penetrations occurring months earlier violates the "same criminal transaction” requirement and overlaps with ov 25, which assigns offense variable points for "contemporaneous criminal acts,” including acts similar to the subject offense that occur within six months of the offense.
I nonetheless agree with the majority in this case that defendant’s sentence should be affirmed. While a scoring error normally entails remanding *289to the sentencing court for reconsideration in light of the correct scoring, the trial court in this case indicated that it was filling out a sentencing guidelines departure form in the event this Court determined that the guidelines had been exceeded. The trial court noted numerous factors in support of its decision. In other words, the trial court clearly indicated its intent to stand by the sentences of four to ten years’ and to 5 years’ imprisonment, and it cited adequate reasons for doing so. Remanding under these circumstances would be futile.