People v. Reynolds

1

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NICHOLAS SCOTT REYNOLDS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. SC 162331

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 7, 2021

Syllabus

Nicholas S. Reynolds pleaded no contest in the Macomb Circuit Court to two counts of child sexually abusive activity (CSAA), MCL 750.145c(2); one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-III), MCL 750.520d; and one count of assault by strangulation, MCL 750.84(1)(b). The circuit court, Kathryn A. Viviano, J., sentenced defendant to 160 to 240 months for the CSAA convictions, 108 to 180 months for the CSC-III conviction, and 72 to 120 months for the assault-by-strangulation conviction. The court ordered that these sentences run concurrently with each other but consecutively to defendant's sentence for an Illinois child-pornography conviction for which he was on parole when he committed the crimes at issue in this appeal. The guidelines range for defendant's minimum sentence had been calculated on the basis of his CSC-III conviction; the guidelines range was not calculated for any of his other convictions. Defendant moved in the circuit court to correct an invalid sentence, arguing that his minimum sentencing guidelines range should have also been scored using his convictions for CSAA. The circuit court denied the motion. Defendant sought leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals, but his application was denied. He then sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, and in lieu of granting leave to appeal the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. 505 Mich. 868 (2019). On remand, the Court of Appeals, Swartzle, P.J., and Jansen and Borrello, JJ., affirmed defendant's sentences. 334 Mich.App. 205 (2020). Defendant again sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal and without hearing oral argument held:

Defendant was entitled to be resentenced. Under MCL 771.14(2)(e)(ii), the presentence investigation report (the PSIR) must include the applicable "sentence grid" "for each crime having the highest crime class" that defendant was convicted of when no consecutive sentencing is authorized. Similarly, MCL 771.14(2)(e)(iii) requires inclusion of "the computation that determines the recommended minimum range for the crime having the highest crime class." MCL 771.14(2)(e)(ii) and (iii) do not say that a sentencing court must use only the highest guidelines range among two equally classified felony offenses when imposing concurrent sentences for those offenses. Inferring such a requirement would make the mandate to score each of the highest-class felonies a directive to conduct a mere academic exercise, as only the highest range would actually be used when imposing a sentence for any of these felonies. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals' reliance on People v Lopez, 305 Mich.App. 686 (2014), was misplaced because Lopez involved multiple convictions of offenses in different crime classes, whereas this case concerned multiple convictions and concurrent sentences for different offenses within the same crime class. The Court of Appeals correctly identified the need to score the guidelines for both the CSAA and CSC-III offenses at issue, but its conclusion that any difference between the guidelines ranges for these different offenses within the same crime class would be subsumed by the highest guidelines range was an inappropriate extension of Lopez. The more reasonable reading of MCL 771.14(2)(e)(ii) and (iii), for concurrent-sentencing purposes, is that when two or more offenses fall within the same crime class and it is the highest applicable crime class, then not only must each offense be scored, but the defendant must also be sentenced based on the respective minimum sentencing guidelines ranges for each offense. This reading gives each part of MCL 771.14(2)(e) full legal effect. In this case, the circuit court erroneously rejected defendant's argument that the PSIR must include the applicable sentencing grid and minimum sentencing guidelines range for his CSAA and CSC-III convictions because both are Class B crimes. The circuit court also erred by assuming that the offense variables and prior record variables would be scored exactly the same for each offense and by basing defendant's CSAA sentences on the guidelines range for his CSC-III conviction. Accordingly defendant was entitled to be resentenced because the trial court erred and the record on appeal, which was missing the warrant-authorization request that served as the factual basis for defendant's plea, did not allow for a determination of what effect the identified errors might have had on defendant's minimum sentencing guidelines range for his CSAA convictions.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Macomb Circuit Court for correction of the PSIR and resentencing on defendant's CSAA convictions.

Justice Viviano did not participate due to a familial relationship with the presiding circuit court judge in this case.

Chief Justice: Bridget M. McCormack, Justices: Brian K. Zahra, David F. Viviano, Richard H. Bernstein, Elizabeth T. Clement, Megan K. Cavanagh, Elizabeth M. Welch

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH (except Viviano, J.)

OPINION

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Nicholas Reynolds, pleaded no contest to two counts of child sexually abusive activity (CSAA), MCL 750.145c(2); one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-III), MCL 750.520d; and one count of assault by strangulation, MCL 750.84(1)(b). On appeal by leave granted, the Court of Appeals held that because CSAA and CSC-III are both Class B offenses, defendant's presentence investigation report (PSIR) should have scored the guidelines for both offenses under MCL 771.14(2)(e). Defendant agrees but argues that the Court of Appeals erred by holding that he was not entitled to a remand for resentencing. We agree with defendant. Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the Macomb Circuit Court for resentencing on defendant's CSAA convictions.

The record shows that the parties stipulated to the admission of a warrant-authorization request for the purpose of providing the factual basis for defendant's plea. That document was not retained in the lower court's file, and it has not been provided to this Court. The record shows that defendant's CSC-III conviction was the basis for calculating his minimum sentencing guidelines range of 99 to 160 months for his CSAA convictions. Neither the author of the PSIR nor the trial court calculated defendant's guidelines range for his CSAA convictions, despite CSAA also being a Class B offense. The trial court sentenced defendant to 160 to 240 months for the CSAA convictions, 108 to 180 months for the CSC-III conviction, and 72 to 120 months for the assault-by-strangulation conviction. The court ordered that these sentences run concurrently with each other but consecutively to defendant's sentence for an Illinois child-pornography conviction for which he was on parole when he committed the crimes at issue in this appeal.

Through appellate counsel, defendant filed a motion to correct an invalid sentence. Defendant argued that his minimum sentencing guidelines range should have been scored using his convictions for CSAA, the highest Class B offense. The trial court denied the motion in a written opinion and order, ruling that although CSC-III and CSAA were both Class B offenses against a person, no correction was required because "the same prior record variables [(PRVs)] and offense variables [(OVs)] are scored for" each offense under MCL 777.21(1)(b) and MCL 777.22(1). Defendant first sought leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals, but his application was denied. He then sought leave to appeal in this Court, and in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. People v Reynolds, 505 Mich. 868 (2019). On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's sentences in a published opinion. People v Reynolds, 334 Mich.App. 205; 964 N.W.2d 127 (2020).

As explained by the Court of Appeals:

The main issue on appeal concerns how to properly determine defendant's recommended minimum guidelines range in light of his multiple convictions. MCL 777.21(2), contained within the sentencing guidelines, provides that "[i]f the defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, subject to section 14 of chapter XI, score each offense as provided in this part." (Emphasis added.) Following this instruction, we turn our attention to MCL 771.14, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(2) . . . A presentence investigation report . . . shall include all of the following:

* * *

(e) For a person to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines set forth in chapter XVII, all of the following:

(i) For each conviction for which a consecutive sentence is authorized or required, the sentence grid in part 6 of chapter XVII that contains the recommended minimum sentence range.

(ii) Unless otherwise provided in subparagraph (i), for each crime having the highest crime class, the sentence grid in part 6 of chapter XVII that contains the recommended minimum sentence range.

(iii) Unless otherwise provided in subparagraph (i), the computation that determines the recommended minimum sentence range for the crime having the highest crime class. [Emphasis added.]

These statutes, read together, require that the recommended minimum guidelines range be determined for "each" offense "having the highest crime class." MCL 777.21(2) (emphasis added); MCL 771.14(2)(e)(ii) (emphasis added). This Court has explained that a trial court is "not required to

...