Background
Sheri Lynn Lenartz’s former boyfriend, who was on parole, went to her apartment to exchange belongings. After he rejected her request to resume their relationship, Lenartz threatened to falsely accuse him of molesting her granddaughter, prevented him from leaving, and repeatedly asked him to have sex. The two ultimately performed oral sex on each other, and the victim recorded the encounter’s audio.
Several days later, Lenartz falsely reported that the victim had molested her granddaughter and assaulted her. The report was disproved after the victim gave police 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 circuit court imposed concurrent prison terms of 5 to 20 years for extortion and 2 to 5 years for attempted CSC-III, based on a guidelines calculation that included 15 points for OV 10, 10 points for OV 12, and 25 points for OV 19.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals vacated Lenartz’s sentences and remanded for de novo resentencing. The court held that OV 19 should have been scored at 10 points, rather than 25, because Lenartz’s false police report interfered with the administration of justice but did not threaten the security of a penal institution or court. That correction reduced the applicable minimum-sentence range from 51 to 85 months to 45 to 75 months, requiring resentencing.
The court also held that the trial court’s stated basis for assigning 15 points under OV 10 was erroneous. Lenartz’s threats exploiting the victim’s parole status constituted the extortion offense itself, not preoffense predatory conduct. The prosecution’s alternative theory that Lenartz lured the victim to her apartment may be considered by the trial court on remand. The appellate 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 coercing him to perform cunnilingus. The trial court may consider on remand whether an alleged knife threat supports 25 points for OV 12.
Key Takeaways
- Conduct constituting the sentencing offense itself does not qualify as preoffense predatory conduct for purposes of OV 10.
- Dismissed charges may support OV 12 when the underlying acts are distinct, contemporaneous felonious acts that will not result in separate convictions.
- A false police report supports 10 points under OV 19 for interference with the administration of justice, not 25 points absent a threat to the security of a court or penal institution.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Michigan courts must distinguish an offense’s constituent conduct from separate preoffense or contemporaneous conduct when scoring sentencing variables. It also confirms that a guidelines-scoring error requires resentencing when correcting it changes the applicable range.
Because resentencing is de novo, the prosecution may present alternative scoring theories that the original sentencing court did not address, including whether Lenartz lured the victim for purposes of OV 10 and whether an alleged felonious assault warrants a higher OV 12 score.