PEOPLE OF MI V STEPHEN SCOTT GOODRICH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
September 13, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 233636
Saginaw Circuit Court
LC No. 00-018906-FC
STEPHEN SCOTT GOODRICH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Cavanagh and R. P. Griffin*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his concurrent sentences of ten to twenty years’
imprisonment following his jury trial convictions of first-degree home invasion, MCL
750.110a(2), and arson of a dwelling house, MCL 750.72. We affirm.
On appeal, defendant argues that he is entitled to resentencing because the trial court
misscored offense variable (OV) 1 and OV 10. We disagree. The legislative sentencing
guidelines apply to offenses committed on or after January 1, 1999. MCL 769.34(2). This Court
must affirm minimum sentences within the guidelines sentence range unless there was an error in
scoring the guidelines or inaccurate information relied on in determining the sentence. MCL
769.34(10); People v Leversee, 243 Mich App 337, 348; 622 NW2d 325 (2000). The trial
court’s scoring of the guidelines is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and if there is evidence
that supports a particular score, the trial court’s decision will be affirmed. See People v Cain,
238 Mich App 95, 129-130; 605 NW2d 28 (1999).
Here, defendant’s prior record variable (PRV) score totaled thirty points, placing him in
PRV level D, and the OV score totaled sixty-five points, placing him in OV level V; therefore,
the minimum sentence range for these class B offenses was 78-130 months. See MCL 777.16c;
777.16f; 777.63. Defendant received a minimum sentence within the guidelines but challenges
the scoring of two offense variables. In particular, defendant claims that OV 10 (exploitation of
a vulnerable victim), MCL 777.40, should have been scored as zero instead of fifteen points
because his behavior did not amount to “predatory conduct” involving a vulnerable victim.
Defendant also claims that OV 1 (aggravated use of a weapon), MCL 777.31, should have been
scored as zero instead of five points because when he used a knife to cut up his wife’s clothing
and other personal effects, a weapon was not displayed or implied to a victim. However, even if
* Former Supreme Court justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
we agreed with defendant’s arguments and reduced his guidelines score by the contested twenty
points, his minimum sentence would still be within the applicable guidelines’ range at OV level
IV. See MCL 777.63. Accordingly, the alleged scoring errors, if any, would be harmless and
defendant would not be entitled to resentencing. See MCL 769.34(10); People v Babcock, 244
Mich App 64, 72; 624 NW2d 479 (2000).
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Robert P. Griffin
-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.
