STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
December 22, 2009
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 04-013936-FC
Before: K. F. Kelly, P.J., and Hoekstra and Whitbeck, JJ.
Defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of armed robbery, MCL 750.529, and was
sentenced to 120 to 240 months in prison. In People v Bruce, unpublished order of the Court of
Appeals, entered January 26, 2006 (Docket No. 265872), this Court denied defendant’s
application for leave to appeal. Our Supreme Court denied an application for leave on May 30,
2006. Defendant’s subsequent motion to amend her presentence investigation report (PSIR) was
denied. This Court granted defendant’s pro per delayed application for leave to appeal this
order. We now affirm the trial court’s order.
Under the heading of “Family” in defendant’s PSIR, it is noted that defendant’s father
left home when she was nine months old, was not involved in defendant’s life, and had a
criminal history. Defendant seeks to have this criminal history deleted from the PSIR. She
acknowledges that it is accurate, but maintains it is irrelevant. Further, she claims that the
information could have an adverse impact on determinations regarding her placement, security
level, programming, and treatment while in prison, and on determinations relative to parole. She
also states that she believes the information was used against her in sentencing, and that counsel
did not show her this part of the PSIR before sentencing.
Defendant did not challenge the PSIR at sentencing. 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 a 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.
See also MCR 6.425(E)(2). In People v Sharp, 192 Mich App 501, 504; 481 NW2d 773 (1992),
this Court held that a challenge to the PSIR raised after sentencing was not preserved for review.
Therefore, this Court could decline to address the issue. See id.
Defendant’s concern that this information has been or will be used against her is
unsubstantiated. We conclude that defendant is not entitled to the relief requested.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ William C. Whitbeck