People v. Lechleitner, 291 Mich. App. 56

Defendant convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated causing death, and sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender to 43–270 months.
Defendant's blood alcohol content was 0.12 g/dL at the time of the incident.
The事故 occurred in the early morning of November 22, 2007 on a slippery freeway; defendant's truck struck guardrails and stopped in the middle, with headlights off and hazard lights on.
Defendant attempted to propel the truck out of danger by using his leg after stopping, while other drivers swerved to avoid the scene, resulting in a fatality when another vehicle struck the stopped car.
On appeal, defendant argued (1) incorrect definition of 'operate' and (2) improper scoring of offense variable OV 9; issue framed as plain error but reviewable de novo for statutory interpretation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 'operate' was properly defined under Wood	Wood controls; operation extends until risk is eliminated.	Dictionary 'to cause to function' should define operation; no ongoing control after crash.	Wood remains controlling; conviction affirmed.
Whether OV 9 should be scored as 10 points	Multiple victims endangered, including others in danger from the crash and actions at the scene.	Only the decedent was in danger; McGraw dictates different scope.	Court correctly scored 10 points for OV 9 (four victims).

People v. Denio, 454 Mich 691 (1997) (statutory interpretation standard of review is de novo; plain error standard applies for unpreserved claims)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (plain error rule for unpreserved errors)
People v. Wood, 450 Mich 399 (1995) (operating statute defined by danger to others; continuing operation after loss of motion)
People v. McGraw, 484 Mich 120 (2009) (OV 9 transactional approach improper; focus on conduct during sentencing offense)
Martin v. Rapid Inter-Urban Partnership, 480 Mich 936 (2007) (broader interpretation of 'operate' in transportation context)