People v. Maben
313 Mich. App. 545
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Maben pleaded guilty to assault by strangulation or suffocation, MCL 750.84(1)(b), and was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to 6 years 4 months to 20 years.
- Trial court scored sentencing variables (PRVs and OVs) totaling 50 and 30 points respectively, yielding a 19–38 month minimum range, doubled to 38–76 months.
- Maben challenged PSIR contents and several scoring decisions; the court struck some items but largely rejected challenges.
- PSIR described injuries: red marks on neck, near loss of consciousness, claimed medical treatment, and various statements including a victim impact portion.
- Court found the PSIR challenges were not adequately resolved and remanded for proper consideration under MCR 6.425(E) and MCL 771.14(6).
- Court affirmed conviction and sentence pending remand for PSIR corrections and potential resentencing if inaccuracies affected sentencing.]
- Note: The remand directs the trial court to resolve challenged PSIR information and determine whether inaccuracies impacted sentencing or require resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PRV 5 scoring of 20 points was proper | Maben had seven or more qualifying misdemeanors; seven required PRV 5. | Malicious use of a telecommunications device is not an offense against a person; misclassification prevented PRV 5 20-point score. | PRV 5 scoring correct; the offense is an offense against a person for PRV purposes. |
| Whether OV 3 scoring of 10 points for bodily injury requiring medical treatment was supported | No evidence the victim required medical treatment; challenged the PSIR basis. | Record supports that the victim suffered neck injuries and treatment would be sought; hospital visit not required. | OV 3 score supported by record family and officer observations; no error in scoring. |
| Whether trial court adequately addressed Maben’s PSIR challenges | Court failed to resolve challenges and treat challenged information properly per MCR 6.425(E). | Court relied on presumptive accuracy of PSIR; challenges were not adequately considered. | Remanded to address PSIR challenges; if inaccuracies affected sentencing, resentencing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hardy, 494 Mich 430 (2013) (standard for reviewing sentencing factual findings; de novo adequacy of facts for scoring variables)
- People v. Earl, 297 Mich App 104 (2012) (trial court may rely on reasonable inferences to support scores)
- People v. McAllister, 241 Mich App 466 (2000) (opportunity to challenge PSIR contents and consequences on sentencing)
- People v. Harper, 479 Mich 599 (2007) (presumption of accuracy applies to unchallenged PSIR information)
- People v. Spanke, 254 Mich App 642 (2003) (courts may disregard challenged PSIR information or strike it if inaccurate)
- Morales v. Parole Bd., 260 Mich App 29 (2003) ( PSIR is broad information tool; defendant must be given opportunity to challenge contents)
- People v. Thompson, 189 Mich App 85 (1991) (guidance on correcting PSIR and limitations on sentencing reliance on challenged data)
- People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015) (addressed scoring standards after Supreme Court decision; procedural context for sentencing)