6.11PSIR Must Be Reasonably Updated
The PSIR on which a sentencing court relies must be “reasonably updated.” People v Triplett, 407 Mich 510, 515 (1980). See also People v Hawkins, 500 Mich 987, 987 (2017) (remanding for resentencing where “[t]here [was] no indication in the record that, at sentencing, the trial court considered an updated Sentencing Information Report, or applicable guidelines range, in imposing its sentence following the defendant’s probation violations”). However, an updated PSIR may not be necessary where the sentencing court has no discretion in the length of the sentence imposed. People v Hemphill, 439 Mich 576, 581 (1992). See also People v Foy, 124 Mich App 107, 111-112 (1983) (no updated PSIR required where trial court directed to impose statutorily mandated two-year term of imprisonment for the defendant’s felony-firearm conviction).
A PSIR that is “several years old” is not “reasonably updated.” See Hemphill, 439 Mich at 580-581. Even reports prepared within the year may not satisfy the reasonably updated requirement; for example, “[a] five-month-old report was found not to have been properly used where there were significant allegations that the defendant’s circumstances had changed during the interim.” Id. at 581 (citation omitted).
The requirement that an updated PSIR be utilized at a defendant’s sentencing may be satisfied by the submission of a supplementary report. People v Hemphill, 439 Mich 576, 581 (1992). Additionally, concerns about inaccurate or incomplete information in a PSIR can be alleviated if the trial court has the relevant and updated information from another source. People v Odom, 327 Mich App 297, 313 (2019) (finding the trial court’s sentencing decision was based on updated information despite the fact that the PSIR “failed to include information about voluntary programs defendant completed while incarcerated” where the defendant provided “the trial court with documentation regarding the programs he voluntarily completed in prison”). “[W]hen it comes to sentencing, it is not particularly important how the information gets before the trial court; rather, it is important that the trial court have the relevant information available for sentencing.” Id., citing Hemphill, 439 Mich at 581-582.
B.Report Must be Prepared for Sentencing Offense
Reports prepared in connection with unrelated offenses are inadequate. People v Hemphill, 439 Mich 576, 581 (1992), citing People v Anderson, 107 Mich App 62, 66-67 (1981) and People v McKeever, 123 Mich App 533, 539-541 (1983).
“Without reaching the question of whether a four-month gap between the preparation of the original presentence report and sentencing comports with the reasonableness requirement of [People v Triplett, 407 Mich 510, 515 (1980),] . . . a defendant is entitled to be sentenced on the basis of a presentence report that is prepared especially for the offense for which he is being sentenced.” People v Anderson, 107 Mich App 62, 66-67 (1981). See also McKeever, 123 Mich App at 540-541 (where the trial court used a five-month-old PSIR prepared for a different offense, the Court of Appeals held “that a defendant may not be sentenced on the basis of a presentence report prepared for another offense even though the defendant was convicted after a trial”).
A defendant may not waive the requirement that a PSIR be utilized at his or her sentencing hearing. People v Hemphill, 439 Mich 576, 581 (1992). However, a defendant may generally waive the right to an updated PSIR at the defendant’s resentencing as long as the waiver is made intelligently, understandingly, and voluntarily and the PSIR is not “manifestly outdated[.]” Id. at 581-582 (noting the PSIR must be accurate or believed to be accurate by both parties). The prosecution may also waive completion of an updated PSIR at a resentencing hearing. Id. at 582.