PEOPLE OF MI V GREGORY MICHAEL SANDERS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 18, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 276980
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 05-000139-FC
GREGORY MICHAEL SANDERS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Jansen and Hoekstra, JJ.
HOEKSTRA, J., (dissenting).
Respectfully, I disagree with the majority’s holding that the trial court erred in
considering defendant’s post-sentencing motion to correct errors in the presentence investigation
report (PSIR). While I agree that People v Sharp, 192 Mich App 50, 504-505; 481 NW2d 773
(1992), shields trial courts from being required to consider post-sentencing challenges to the
accuracy of a PSIR, I find no corresponding sword in either the language of MCL 771.14(6)1 or
MCR 6.425(E)(1)(b),2 or in the relevant case law, forbidding a trial court from choosing, in its
discretion, to address an unpreserved, post-sentencing challenge to the accuracy of a PSIR.
1
MCL 771.14(6) provides:
At the time of sentencing, either party may challenge, on the record, the
accuracy or relevancy of any information contained in the presentence
investigation report. The court may order an adjournment to permit the parties to
prepare a challenge or a response to a challenge. If the court finds on the record
that the challenged information is inaccurate or irrelevant, that finding shall be
made part of the record, the presentence investigation report shall be amended,
and the inaccurate or irrelevant information shall be stricken accordingly before
the report is transmitted to the department of corrections.
2
MCR 6.425(E)(1)(b) provides in relevant part:
At sentencing, the court must, on the record:
***
(continued…)
-1-
Further, I disagree with the majority’s reliance on waiver. Never before has waiver been
utilized to close the trial court’s door to a defendant who seeks to correct errors in his PSIR and,
in my judgment, this is for good reason. This Court has recognized that, because the Department
of Corrections (DOC) makes important decisions regarding a prisoner’s status based on the
content of a PSIR, the PSIR should contain accurate information. People v Norman, 148 Mich
App 273, 275; 384 NW2d 147 (1986). Occasionally, the DOC’s decisions regarding a prisoner
based on the information contained in a PSIR cannot be anticipated at the time of the defendant’s
sentencing. Here, defendant is not claiming the alleged inaccurate passages resulted in an invalid
sentence; rather, he is claiming the inaccurate passages led to a decision by the DOC to label him
a sexual predator, a decision unforeseen at the time of sentencing. Consequently, in the absence
of clear authority precluding a trial court from addressing an unpreserved, post-sentencing
challenge to a PSIR, and in light of the post-sentencing importance of the PSIR, I would hold
that the trial court had discretion to consider defendant’s motion to correct errors.
Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to correct
errors because the stricken information accurately reflected the testimony at trial and MCR
6.425(A)(2) required the information to be included in the PSIR. This Court reviews for an
abuse of discretion a trial court’s ruling on a challenge to the accuracy of a PSIR. People v
Uphaus (On Remand), 278 Mich App 174, 181; 748 NW2d 899 (2008).
Here, the trial court ordered stricken from the PSIR as inaccurate three passages that
related to defendant’s acts of stripping the victim and attempting to penetrate the victim’s anus
with a shotgun or broomstick. The passages, with the exception of the passage stating that
defendant’s actions were done for the purpose of humiliating the victim, reflected what the
probation officer had been told by the prosecution about the victim’s trial testimony and by the
co-defendant. The prosecution’s statements regarding the victim’s trial testimony accurately
reflected the testimony given by the victim at trial,3 and nothing in the record suggests the
probation officer inaccurately summarized the codefendant’s statement. The record does not,
however, affirmatively support that defendant intended to humiliate the victim. Accordingly, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the passage regarding defendant’s attempt to
humiliate the victim. But, in all other respects, I would conclude the trial court abused its
discretion in granting defendant’s motion to correct errors. Further, even if not relied upon by
the trial court in fashioning defendant’s sentence, the passages were required to be included in
the PSIR by MCR 6.425(A)(2).4 Without these passages, the PSIR is not complete, and as noted
supra, the PSIR is used for purposes other than sentencing by the DOC.
(…continued)
(b) give each party an opportunity to explain, or challenge the accuracy or
relevancy of, any information in the presentence report, and resolve any
challenges in accordance with the procedure set forth in subrule (E)(2).
3
After the victim testified, defendant opted to plead guilty to kidnapping and felonious assault.
4
MCR 6.425(A)(2) provides:
(continued…)
-2-
I would affirm the trial court’s order as to the passage regarding defendant’s attempt to
humiliate the victim, but reverse as to the other passages.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
(…continued)
(A) Prior to sentencing, the probation officer must investigate the
defendant’s background and character, verify material information, and report in
writing the results of the investigation to the court. The report must be succinct
and, depending on the circumstances, include:
***
(2) a complete description of the offense and the circumstances
surrounding it.
-3-
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.
