Background
Sheri Lynn Lenartz’s former boyfriend, who was on parole, went to her apartment to exchange belongings. After he refused to resume their relationship, Lenartz threatened to falsely accuse him of molesting her granddaughter, prevented him from leaving, and repeatedly sought sex. The two ultimately engaged in oral sex, and the victim recorded the encounter. Lenartz later falsely reported that he had molested her granddaughter and assaulted her, but police discovered the false report after hearing the recording.
Lenartz pleaded guilty to extortion and no contest to attempted third-degree criminal sexual conduct in exchange for dismissal of other charges. The trial court assessed 60 offense-variable points, including 15 points for OV 10, 10 points for OV 12, and 25 points for OV 19. It sentenced her to concurrent prison terms of 5 to 20 years for extortion and 2 to 5 years for attempted CSC-III.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that OV 10 was improperly scored at 15 points on the trial court’s stated theory. Lenartz’s threats exploiting the victim’s parole status constituted the extortion offense itself, not preoffense “predatory conduct.” The court declined to decide the prosecution’s alternative argument that Lenartz had lured the victim to her apartment, leaving that issue for the trial court to consider during de novo resentencing.
The court upheld at least 10 points for OV 12 because Lenartz committed two distinct contemporaneous felonious acts against a person: kidnapping the victim by restraining him with the intent to engage in criminal sexual penetration, and committing an additional act of CSC-III by coercing him to perform cunnilingus. It also accepted the prosecution’s concession that OV 19 should have been scored at 10 points, rather than 25, because Lenartz interfered with the administration of justice through her false police report but did not threaten the security of a court or penal institution.
Correcting OV 19 alone reduced the total OV score from 60 to 45 points and lowered the applicable minimum-sentence range from 51–85 months to 45–75 months. The court therefore vacated Lenartz’s sentences and remanded for resentencing.
Key Takeaways
- Conduct constituting the sentencing offense itself cannot qualify as preoffense predatory conduct under OV 10.
- Dismissed charges and distinct uncharged acts may support OV 12 when they are contemporaneous felonious acts separate from the sentencing offense.
- A scoring error that changes the applicable sentencing-guidelines range requires resentencing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the temporal limitation on OV 10: predatory conduct must precede the offense and cannot simply duplicate the conduct establishing the conviction. It also illustrates how courts distinguish separate underlying acts for OV 12, even when related charges were dismissed under a plea agreement.
Because resentencing is de novo, the prosecution may present its alternative theories for scoring OV 10 and OV 12 on remand, but the trial court must resentence Lenartz under correctly calculated guidelines.