Opinion
358386
10-08-2021
People of Michigan v. Raschid Yotta Zimmerman
LC No. 20-092890-FH
Douglas B. Shapiro, James Robert Redford JudgesORDER
Mark T. Boonstra, Presiding Judge.
The application for leave to appeal is DENIED for lack of merit in the grounds presented.
Shapiro, J., would remand to the trial court for correction of defendant's PSIR. Defendant was convicted of possession of contraband by a prisoner after he was found in personal possession of a small amount of marijuana and several sublingual doses of suboxone. The PSIR described the discovery of the contraband in defendant's possession. It then went on to note that a pop bottle containing marijuana had been found in a trash can in a prisoner rest room which was sent for fingerprint analysis but none were found. The report then stated that an officer "suspected the contraband found on Zimmerman was thrown over the fence by someone on the outside and then retrieved by Zimmerman." Defendant objected to this passage as inaccurate. He denied any connection to the pop bottle and pointed out to the court that there was no physical evidence that connected him to the pop bottle nor any evidence of how the bottle came to be in the prison or in the rest room's trash can. The trial court considered the objection and concluded that while it was proper to include the officer's "suspicion" in the report, "it's also fair to say that, after that sentence, that it was not established - the Captain's - let's see here. We can simply add to that that this fact was not - was not later established through physical evidence. . . . We could simply add that on there. And that should address your objection." Defense counsel agreed and thanked the court. Defendant claims that this change was never made in his PSIR and the copy of the PSIR he submitted with his application is consistent with that claim as it does not contain the additional language. The prosecution has not responded to the motion or otherwise indicated that the PSIR was in fact revised per the trial court's direction. Accordingly, I can see no factual or legal basis for denying defendant's request. He was granted relief by the trial court that, at least given the record before us, was never provided. We should remand for the trial court to determine if the change was made and, if not, to see that it is done.