People v. Bunn

Full title: PEOPLE v BUNN

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Feb 17, 1988

166 Mich. App. 584 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)

421 N.W.2d 247

Opinion

Docket No. 100956.

Decided February 17, 1988.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, Robert E. Weiss, Prosecuting Attorney, and Donald A. Kuebler, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Alan S. Wortman, for defendant.

Before: CYNAR, P.J., and BEASLEY and K.B. GLASER,^_ JJ.

_ Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted on his plea of guilty of criminal sexual conduct, third degree, MCL 750.520d; MSA 28.788(4). The recommended guideline sentence range was twelve to thirty-six months. The sentence imposed on January 13, 1987, was 7 1/2 to 15 years. The trial court stated its reasons on the record for exceeding the guideline range, but did not indicate its reasons on the sentencing information report. Defendant filed an appeal as of right on May 28, 1987. On August 14, 1987, the trial court filed a sentence guidelines departure form which stated the trial judge's reasons for imposition of a sentence outside the guideline range.

Defendant contends that, if a sentencing information report is filled out by the trial court and the guidelines are exceeded, the sentencing judge must state both on the record and on the sentencing information report his reasons for exceeding the guidelines. We agree.

The Sentencing Guidelines, Departure Policy, Ch 27, ¶ 3, provides in part: "Departure reasons must be placed on the record and on the Sentencing Information Report (SIR)." (Emphasis added.) See also People v Fleming, 428 Mich. 408, 428-429; 410 N.W.2d 266 (1987), and People v Spalla, 147 Mich. App. 722; 383 N.W.2d 105 (1985).

While Spalla requires a remand where departure reasons are not set forth on the record and the SIR, we believe, under the record herein, the need for remand should be reexamined and the issue before us should be considered under the harmless error court rule and statute. MCR 2.613(A); MCL 769.26; MSA 28.1096.

The trial court articulated its reasons on the record for departure from the sentencing guidelines. The trial court failed to state reasons on the information sheet as required by the Sentencing Guidelines Manual. However, since the trial court has corrected the SIR to reflect the reasons for departure, the error is harmless.

Affirmed.