Court Opinion

ID: 9852247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:27:10.618566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:24.666369
License: Public Domain

Sawyer, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
Defendant objected at sentencing to the scoring of three of the offense variables. The trial court never responded to defendant’s objections, not even to summarily reject them. Where a defendant raises an effective challenge to the scoring of the sir, the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts are as the prosecution asserts in support of the scoring. People v McCracken, 172 Mich App 94, 105; 431 NW2d 840 (1988). However, where the record of the trial or the plea proceeding contains evidence supporting or opposing a proposed decision and the scoring of a variable, it is within the discretion of the sentencing judge to determine whether to entertain further proofs. Id.
*347In any event, it is necessary for the trial court to exercise its discretion in determining whether additional proofs are necessary and, with or without additional proofs, resolve the defendant’s objection to the scoring. See People v Walker, 428 Mich 261, 268; 407 NW2d 367 (1987). In the case at bar, the trial court failed to exercise any discretion as it failed to respond to defendant’s objections to the scoring of the sir, thus making no determination whether additional proofs were necessary or whether defendant’s objections to the proposed scoring were valid.
As for the majority’s conclusion that any error in the scoring of the sir is harmless since defendant was convicted as a habitual offender, I would normally agree. In general, I agree with the majority’s reasoning since the guidelines are inapplicable to habitual offender cases. However, I do not believe that the error is harmless in this case. The sentencing transcript indicates that the sentencing judge did take the guidelines into account in sentencing defendant. Although the trial court was not required to consider the guidelines, once it chose to do so it was obligated to consider an accurately scored sir. Simply put, defendant has the right to have the sentencing judge consider accurate information. Accordingly, I would remand for resentencing.