People v. Taylor, Docket No. 80128

• Decision Date: 22 January 1986
• Docket Number: Docket No. 80128
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Lee TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant. 146 Mich.App. 203, 380 N.W.2d 47
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 47

380 N.W.2d 47

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Lee TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 80128.

146 Mich.App. 203, 380 N.W.2d 47

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 18, 1985.

Decided July 24, 1985.

Released for Publication Jan. 22, 1986.

[146 MICHAPP 203] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., G. Michael Hocking, [146 MICHAPP 204] Pros. Atty., and Jeffrey L. Sauter, Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender by Sheila N. Robertson, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Before ALLEN, P.J., and WAHLS and O'BRIEN, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant pled guilty as charged of jail breaking through use of violence, M.C.L. Sec. 750.197c; M.S.A. Sec. 28.394(3). He was sentenced to a prison term of from 18 months to 4 years, to be served consecutively to the sentence he had received immediately before the jail breaking. Defendant appeals as of right.

Defendant first argues that he should have been charged by supplemental information with being an "inmate", thus giving him notice of the consecutive sentencing requirement of M.C.L. Sec. 768.7a; M.S.A. Sec. 28.1030(1). This argument is without merit; defendant had reasonable notice that he was charged as a prison inmate from the original charge in this case:

"did, being a person lawfully imprisoned in a jail or other place of confinement established by law, to-wit: 56th District Court holding cell, break the place of confinement, although an escape was not actually made, through the use of violence, threats of violence or dangerous weapons, while awaiting or during transfer to or from prison after sentence. Contrary to MCL 750.197c; MSA 28.394(3)." (Emphasis added.)

We affirm defendant's consecutive sentence.

Defendant next argues that he is entitled to a "corrected" presentence report which reflects his [146 MICHAPP 205] objections to inaccuracy, made at the time of sentencing, which objections were sustained.

M.C.L. Sec. 771.14(5); M.S.A. Sec. 28.1144(5), 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 that the challenged information is inaccurate or irrelevant, that finding shall be made a part of the record and 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."

In this case, defendant did challenge the accuracy of information contained in the presentence report. However, the court did not make a finding of inaccuracy but chose to proceed with sentencing without taking into consideration the challenged information....