Opinion
Docket No. 116071.
Decided April 2, 1990.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Richard Thompson, Prosecuting Attorney, Robert C. Williams, Chief, Appellate Division, and Thomas R. Grden, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
State Appellate Defender (by Derrick A. Carter), for defendant on appeal.
Before: MICHAEL J. KELLY, P.J., and WAHLS and SAWYER, JJ.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to uttering and publishing, MCL 750.249; MSA 28.446, and to being a fourth felony offender, MCL 769.12; MSA 28.1084. After vacating defendant's sentence of three to fourteen years on the underlying offense, the judge sentenced defendant to three to thirty years in prison for his habitual offender conviction. Defendant appeals his sentence as of right. We affirm.
Upon a review of the record and briefs, we find no necessity for resentencing on the basis of the probation officer's failure to interview defendant when defendant was in the custody of a United States Marshal. Defendant's presentence report complied with statutory requirements. MCL 771.14; MSA 28.1144. There is no indication that defendant's sentence was based on anything but accurate information. People v Malkowski, 385 Mich. 244, 249; 188 N.W.2d 559 (1971). Nor did defendant object, at sentencing or on appeal, to any information in the presentence report as inaccurate, false or misleading. People v Wiggins, 151 Mich. App. 622, 626; 390 N.W.2d 740 (1986). Therefore the report's omission of defendant's version of events does not require resentencing. People v Viaene, 119 Mich. App. 690, 696; 326 N.W.2d 607 (1982).
However, defense counsel urges that People v Triplett, 432 Mich. 568, 573; 442 N.W.2d 622 (1989), requires remand to the sentencing court for articulation on the record of reasons for defendant's sentence. This would require us to ignore that the court was persuaded by counsel's plea for leniency in rejecting the recommended sentence of five to thirty years and instead levying a reduced sentence of three to thirty years. We will not go to such a lengthy extreme to defy the spirit of sentence review and People v Coles, 417 Mich. 523; 339 N.W.2d 440 (1983), in spite of the state appellate defender's proposed interpretation of People v Triplett, supra.
Affirmed.