People of Michigan v. Jose Alfredo Cortes-Azcatl, 331311

Defendant Jose Cortes-Azcatl was convicted by a jury of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated causing death and originally sentenced to 5–15 years imprisonment.
On prior appeal the conviction was affirmed but the sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing due to a scoring error; at resentencing the court imposed 49 months to 15 years.
At resentencing the trial court scored several offense variables (OV 5, OV 9, OV 16, OV 17) based on judicial fact-finding rather than jury findings or defendant admissions.
Those OV scores raised defendant’s total OV points from 65 to 105, moving him from OV Level V to OV Level VI and increasing the guidelines minimum from 19 months to 29 months.
Defendant objected below and appealed, arguing the judicial fact-finding violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Lockridge and that he was entitled to a Crosby remand.
The Court of Appeals concluded the judicial fact-finding affected the minimum sentence range and remanded under Lockridge/Crosby for the trial court to determine whether it would have imposed a materially different sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judicial fact-finding to score OVs that increased the guidelines floor violated the Sixth Amendment and requires a Crosby remand	People contended the sentence was proper (or any error was harmless)	Cortes-Azcatl argued Lockridge error: mandatory OV scoring by judge increased guideline floor, requiring Crosby remand	Court held Lockridge error occurred because OVs 5, 9, 16, 17 were scored by judicial fact-finding and changed the minimum range; remand under Crosby required
Whether the Lockridge error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	People argued any constitutional error did not actually constrain sentencing or was harmless	Cortes-Azcatl argued the guideline floor was actually constrained and not harmless	Court treated the error as affecting the minimum and ordered the Crosby procedure on remand to determine whether the sentence would have been materially different

People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (2015) (Michigan Supreme Court: mandatory judicial fact-finding to score OVs that increases the guideline floor violates the Sixth Amendment; guidelines must be treated as advisory)
United States v Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005) (remand procedure when sentencing error requires trial court to decide whether it would have imposed a different sentence)
People v Stokes, 312 Mich. App. 181 (2015) (preserved Lockridge errors are reviewed for harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt)