Court Opinion

ID: 9852246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:27:10.604514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:24.663466
License: Public Domain

Michael J. Kelly, P.J.
Defendant pled guilty to charges of larceny from a person, MCL 750.357; MSA 28.589, and being an habitual offender, third offense, MCL 769.11; MSA 28.1083. Defendant was sentenced as an habitual offender to 7 Vi to 15 years in prison. Defendant appeals from his sentence as of right. We affirm.
Defendant argues that resentencing is required because the trial court failed to respond to his objections at sentencing concerning the scoring of the Sentencing Information Report (sir). We disagree.
Defendant was sentenced as an habitual offender. The circuit judge did refer to the guidelines when sentencing defendant, but we find this *346reference to be irrelevant. The guidelines do not apply to habitual offender sentencing. Michigan Sentencing Guidelines Manual, 2d ed (1988), p 1; People v Thornsbury, 148 Mich App 92, 98; 384 NW2d 88 (1985). In an habitual offender sentencing, the trial court must fill out a sir on the underlying offense. This is done to aid in the development of guidelines for habitual offender sentencings, rather than to guide the sentencing court in determining the habitual offender’s sentence. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, supra, p 1. Since scoring the sir was merely an administrative function which should not have had any effect on defendant’s habitual offender sentence, the circuit court’s failure to address defendant’s challenges to the sir scoring is harmless error. Resentencing is not required.
Affirmed.
Cavanagh, J., concurred.