PEOPLE OF MI V RICHARD JAMES KNUDSENAnnotate this Case
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
July 14, 1998
Benzie Circuit Court
LC No. 92-001343 FH
RICHARD JAMES KNUDSEN,
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Young, Jr. and Michael R. Smith*, JJ.
Following a plea-based conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of
intoxicating liquor, third offense, MCL 257.625(7)(d); MSA 9.2325(7)(d), the trial court sentenced
defendant to five years’ probation, with the first year to be served in the county jail. Defendant
subsequently pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his probation. He was sentenced to three to five
years’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm, but remand for the purely
administrative function of correcting an error in the amended judgment of sentence.
Defendant’s probation violation was predicated on a misdemeanor conviction for operating a
motor vehicle with a suspended license, second offense, which was secured while defendant served his
probationary sentence originally imposed in this case. To the extent that defendant’s claim that he had
not been imbibing alcoholic beverages immediately before his arrest on the aforementioned
misdemeanor charge can be construed as a challenge to the accuracy of information contained in the
presentence investigation report [PSIR], the trial court adequately responded to the challenge as
demonstrated by the court’s rejection of the challenge in light of the contents of the police report
prepared in the underlying misdemeanor action, which indicated that, immediately before defendant’s
arrest, law enforcement authorities observed defendant drive through a stop sign and drive his vehicle
off the road, almost causing the vehicle to overturn, which indicated that defendant smelled of alcohol
and had bloodshot eyes at the time of arrest and which indicated that breathalyzer tests administered
after defendant’s arrest revealed a blood-alcohol level of .07 and .06. MCR 6.425(D)(3); People v
Hoyt, 185 Mich App 531, 533-536; 462 NW2d 793 (1990).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
The trial court adhered to the principle that sentences are to be tailored to the particular
circumstances of the offense and offender where the court imposed the sentence it did in reliance on
defendant’s criminal history, his actions while on probation, and his failure to admit that he had been
imbibing alcohol while on probation. People v McFarlin, 389 Mich 557, 574; 208 NW2d 504
(1973). These circumstances establish that the trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion and
impose a sentence disproportionate to the circumstances of the offense and offender. People v
Milbourn, 435 Mich 630; 461 NW2d 1 (1990). The trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion
by failing to follow the sentence recommendation contained in the PSIR. People v Cater, 63 Mich
App 41, 42-43; 233 NW2d 882 (1975).
The sentencing transcript and the original judgment of sentence reflect that the trial court
imposed a sentence of three to five years’ imprisonment. Subsequently, the trial court entered an
amended judgment of sentence to correct an erroneous statutory citation. This amended judgment of
sentence erroneously reflects that defendant was sentenced to a two-year minimum sentence.
Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for the entry of an amended judgment of sentence that reflects
the correct length of defendant’s minimum sentence.
Defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. We remand for the administrative purpose
of correcting the judgment of sentence. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
/s/ Michael R. Smith