2.10PRV 6—Relationship to the Criminal Justice System
|
Points |
|
|
20 |
The offender is a prisoner of the department of corrections |
|
15 |
The offender is incarcerated in jail awaiting adjudication or sentencing on a conviction or probation violation. MCL 777.56(1)(b). |
|
10 |
The offender is on parole, probation, or delayed sentence status or on bond awaiting adjudication or sentencing for a felony. MCL 777.56(1)(c). |
|
5 |
The offender is on probation or delayed sentence status or on bond awaiting adjudication or sentencing for a misdemeanor. MCL 777.56(1)(d). |
|
0 |
The offender has no relationship to the criminal justice system. MCL 777.56(1)(e). |
PRV 6 assesses points based on an offender’s relationship to the criminal justice system. MCL 777.56. PRV 6 should be assessed against an offender who is involved with the criminal justice system of Michigan, another state, or the federal criminal justice system. MCL 777.56(1)-(2).
Step 1: Determine which of the statements addressed by the variable apply to the offender. MCL 777.56(1).
Step 2: Assign the point value indicated by the applicable statement with the highest number of points. MCL 777.56(1).
“Delayed sentence status” includes, but is not limited to, an offender assigned or deferred under:
•MCL 333.7411 (deferral for certain controlled substance offenses),
•MCL 600.1076(4) (deferral involving drug treatment courts),
•MCL 750.350a (deferral under limited circumstances for parental kidnapping),
•MCL 750.430 (deferral for impaired healthcare professionals),
•MCL 762.11 to MCL 762.15 (assignment to youthful trainee status), and
•MCL 769.4a (deferral under limited circumstances for domestic assault). MCL 777.56(3)(a).1
1.PRV 6 Counts Only Conduct Occurring Before Commission of the Sentencing Offense
Because PRV 6 accounts for an offender’s conduct before commission of the sentencing offense, an offender’s PRV 6 score may not be adjusted to account for an offender’s subsequent conduct related to a probation violation. People v Hendrick, 261 Mich App 673, 682 (2004), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds 472 Mich 555 (2005).2 PRV 6 does not apply to conduct arising after the commission of the sentencing offenses. Hendrick, 261 Mich App at 682.
2.Disposition of a Previous Crime Pending at the Time Sentencing Offense is Committed
A defendant has a prior “relationship with the criminal justice system” for purposes of scoring PRV 6 when disposition of a misdemeanor crime committed by the defendant is pending at the time the defendant committed the sentencing offense. People v Endres, 269 Mich App 414, 422-423 (2006).3
3.Defendant not Technically on Bond
Where a defendant commits the sentencing offense after having been charged with a misdemeanor for which bond was granted but later forfeited, five points are properly assessed under PRV 6 even if the defendant was not technically “on bond” when he or she committed the sentencing offense. People v Johnson, 293 Mich App 79, 84-90 (2011). The Court stated:
“Admittedly, when an offender commits an offense after his or her bond has been forfeited or revoked, the offender is not ‘on bond,’ as PRV 6 states. However, when an offender’s bond is revoked, he or she is also not free and clear of the criminal justice system. A condition of any pretrial release (bond) is that the defendant will appear in court as required. We note that even if a defendant’s bond is forfeited, the condition that the defendant appear in court is still in place and is an inherent condition of any pretrial release. Forfeiting the monetary part of a bond does not relieve the defendant of the obligation to comply with the condition that he or she appear as required by the court.” Johnson, 293 Mich App at 88-89.
Thus, a five-point score for PRV 6 was proper where the defendant committed a misdemeanor for which bond was granted and subsequently revoked because “the ramifications of the charge remained.” Johnson, 293 Mich App at 89-90. Because the defendant’s misdemeanor charge was still pending, the Court could not “classify [him] as having had ‘no relationship’ with the criminal justice system.” Id. at 90.
Where the defendant entered a plea on a juvenile offense and was “awaiting adjudication or sentencing at the time he committed the sentencing offense,” five points were properly assessed under PRV 6, “even if [the defendant] was not on bond at the time he committed the sentencing offense.” People v Gibbs, 299 Mich App 473, 486-487 (2013).
4.Defendant on Probation for a Juvenile Offense
Ten points were properly scored for PRV 6 where the defendant committed the sentencing offense while on probation for a juvenile offense. People v Anderson, 298 Mich App 178, 180-183 (2012) (“[j]uveniles on probation are involved with the corrections aspect of the criminal justice system”; therefore, the “defendant’s prior juvenile adjudications supported the trial court’s scoring of [PRV 6]”).
5.Incorrect Date Listed on PSIR
The trial court did not err when it assessed five points under PRV 6 despite the fact that the PSIR listed two different dates as the date on which the sentencing offenses occurred and one of those listed dates was after the defendant’s probation ended where the defendant was on probation until October 2011 and “there was evidence at trial that defendant started misappropriating [the victim’s] wealth in March 2011.” People v Haynes, 338 Mich App 392, 439 (2021) (holding “there was evidence in the record to support the trial court’s implied finding that defendant committed the sentencing offense while he was still on probation”).
1 Specific statutes under which an offender’s sentence may be delayed are discussed in detail in Section 9.8.
2 For more information on the precedential value of an opinion with negative subsequent history, see our note.
3 Note that in People v Hardy, 494 Mich 430, 438 n 18 (2013), the Court acknowledged that “[s]everal recent Court of Appeals decisions,” including Endres, 269 Mich App 414, “have stated that ‘[s]coring decisions for which there is any evidence in support will be upheld,’” and explicitly noted that “[t]his statement is incorrect.” Hardy explained that “[t]he ‘any evidence’ standard does not govern review of a circuit court’s factual findings for purposes of assessing points under the sentencing guidelines.” Hardy, 494 Mich at 438 n 18.