People of Michigan v. Juan Vincent Buber, 333806

Defendant (33) pleaded to third-degree criminal sexual conduct for digitally penetrating a 14‑year‑old girl who was the daughter of his then‑girlfriend.
Victim reported multiple incidents, wrote a letter to her mother describing fear, feeling violated, and self‑harm; police documented cuts on her legs; defendant admitted to "touching her inappropriately."
Trial court scored sentencing guideline offense variables (OVs): OV 4 (psychological injury) = 10, OV 10 (vulnerability/exploit) = 10, OV 11 (sexual penetrations) = 50; sentence 5–15 years; later amended only to remove a lifetime tether requirement.
Defendant appealed, challenging the scoring of OV 4, OV 10, and OV 11; district court and trial court relied on record materials including the victim’s letter and PSIR materials.
Court of Appeals affirmed OV 4 and OV 10 scores as supported by a preponderance of the evidence but held OV 11 was mis-scored because additional penetrations were not shown to arise out of the sentencing offense or occur on the same date.
Because OV 11 was erroneous, the court remanded for resentencing (not retaining jurisdiction); court noted OV 13 scoring must be reconsidered in light of the OV 11 change.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
OV 4 (psychological injury) — whether 10 points appropriate	Victim’s letter, statements, and PSIR show serious psychological injury likely needing professional treatment	No evidence of professional treatment; letter insufficient and not proven true	Affirmed: 10 points supported by victim statements, letter, and reasonable inferences from record
OV 10 (vulnerability/exploit) — whether 10 points appropriate	Victim was 14, defendant 33, and acted in a father‑figure role; exploited youth and authority	No domestic relationship; argued no abuse of authority	Affirmed: youth and defendant’s role as authority figure supported 10 points
OV 11 (number of penetrations) — whether 50 points (two or more) proper	Prosecution relied on victim’s multiple‑incident statements and Care House interview describing three incidents	Only one penetration was charged/dated; no evidence others occurred on same date or arose from the sentencing offense	Reversed: OV 11 erroneously scored 50; insufficient evidence that multiple penetrations arose out of the sentencing offense; OV 11 must be rescored
Resentencing/remedy — whether sentence must change	Guidelines properly applied; sentence may remain	Erroneous OV scoring requires resentencing to correct advisory guideline calculation	Remanded for resentencing; court explained guidelines advisory so same sentence could be imposed after correct scoring

People v. Stokes, 312 Mich. App. 181 (review standard for Sixth Amendment challenges to OV scoring)
People v. Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (factual determinations reviewed for clear error; preponderance standard)
People v. Bonilla‑Machado, 489 Mich. 412 (read sentencing guideline statutes as a whole)
People v. Lockett, 295 Mich. App. 165 (OV 4 requires some record evidence of psychological injury)
People v. Williams, 298 Mich. App. 121 (victim fear/anger can support OV 4)
People v. Armstrong, 305 Mich. App. 230 (examples of psychological effects supporting OV 4)
People v. Schrauben, 314 Mich. App. 181 (victim letter upheld OV 4 score)
People v. Ratkov, 201 Mich. App. 123 (court may consider all record evidence when calculating guidelines)
People v. Earl, 297 Mich. App. 104 (trial court may rely on reasonable inferences from record to score OVs)
People v. Needham, 299 Mich. App. 251 (definitions of "exploit" and vulnerability under OV 10)
People v. Cannon, 481 Mich. 152 (abuse of authority status under OV 10)
People v. Johnson, 474 Mich. 96 (OV 11 scoring requires penetrations to arise out of the sentencing offense)
People v. Mutchie, 251 Mich. App. 273 (multiple penetrations counted together when same place, circumstances, course of conduct)
People v. Lockridge, 489 Mich. 358 (advisory nature of sentencing guidelines)