PEOPLE OF MI V JAY FRANCIS RINKE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
January 24, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 271756
Huron Circuit Court
LC No. 05-004469-FH
JAY FRANCIS RINKE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Meter and Gleicher, JJ.
GLEICHER, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The trial court stated that it did not take the challenged information
into account when it sentenced defendant. Specifically, the following portion of the colloquy
quoted by the majority is neither ambiguous nor vague:
It’s not going to change my sentence either whether it is or isn’t a
conviction, but all the information that I have is that it should be there, even
though he denies it. So I’m going to leave it in the report. It’s not gonna have a
bearing on my sentence one way or the other. (Emphasis supplied).
Because the trial court determined that the alleged 1973 CCW conviction would have no
bearing on its imposition of sentence, the unambiguous language of MCR 6.425(E)(2) and MCL
771.14(6) obligated the trial court to strike the PSIR’s reference to the CCW conviction. “[A]
remand for the ministerial task of correcting the presentence report is required.” People v
Russell, 254 Mich App 11, 22; 656 NW2d 817 (2002), rev’d on other grounds 471 Mich 182;
684 NW2d 745 (2004). Consequently, I would remand to the trial court “to correct and edit the
presentence report to delete contested facts, not relied on in sentencing, from the presentence
report.” People v Carino, 456 Mich 865-866; 568 NW2d 683 (1997).
/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
-1-
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
