People of Michigan v. Mark Steven-Randall Harris, 330843

Defendant Mark Steven-Randall Harris forced entry into his estranged wife’s apartment, displayed a handgun, and committed first-degree criminal sexual conduct (oral sex and digital penetration).
The victim’s half-sister, Shoshanna Steele, knocked outside, later entered after the assault and found the victim partially undressed on the floor and defendant on the couch with a gun; defendant pointed the gun at Steele and took her phone.
A jury convicted Harris of CSC I; the trial court sentenced him to 275–500 months’ imprisonment. This Court previously affirmed the conviction and remanded for a Crosby hearing under Lockridge.
At the Crosby hearing the trial court found it would not have imposed a materially different sentence absent the now-unconstitutional mandatory guidelines and stated OV 9 was correctly scored at 10 points (treating Steele as a second victim).
On appeal from denial of resentencing, Harris argued OV 9 was improperly scored because two or more victims were not placed in danger during the CSC I offense; the Court agreed the scoring was erroneous but deemed the error harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OV 9 was properly scored at 10 points for placing 2–9 victims in danger	OV 9 was correctly scored because Steele was placed in danger during the incident	OV 9 should be scored 0 because Steele was not placed in danger during the specific CSC I offense; any danger to Steele occurred after the sexual assault was completed	Court: Trial court erred; Steele was not a victim of the CSC I offense and OV 9 was incorrectly scored 10 points
Whether the OV 9 scoring error requires resentencing	Scoring was proper or harmless	Error requires resentencing because guidelines affected sentence	Court: Error was harmless because correcting OV 9 would not change the applicable guidelines range; no resentencing required
Whether Lockridge entitles defendant to resentencing as making sentence presumptively unreasonable	Lockridge requires review for reasonableness if guidelines relied on unconstitutionally	Lockridge does not require resentencing where sentence is within correct guidelines range	Court: Lockridge does not alter MCL 769.34(10); sentence within guidelines is affirmed
Whether appellate review may consider additional claims raised in defendant’s pro se brief	N/A (procedural)	Claims outside the Crosby remand or not addressed at hearing are reviewable now	Court: Issues not within the limited remand or not raised at hearing are not reviewable on this appeal

People v. Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (review standard for sentencing factual findings)
People v. McGraw, 484 Mich. 120 (OV 9 limited to specific offense; post-offense conduct not countable)
People v. Toma, 462 Mich. 281 (harmless error analysis for sentencing)
People v. McCuller, 479 Mich. 672 (harmlessness of improper sentencing where defendant not prejudiced)
People v. Francisco, 474 Mich. 82 (no resentencing where scoring error does not change guideline range or court would impose same sentence)
People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (invalidated mandatory guidelines; reasonableness review and Crosby remands)
People v. Schrauben, 314 Mich. App. 181 (Lockridge did not alter MCL 769.34(10); affirming within-guidelines sentences)