Background
Sheri Lynn Lenartz’s former boyfriend, who was on parole, visited 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 demanded sex. They ultimately engaged in oral sex, and the victim recorded the encounter’s audio. Lenartz later falsely reported that he had molested her granddaughter and assaulted her, but police discovered the falsehood 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 concurrently to 5 to 20 years for extortion and 2 to 5 years for attempted CSC-III, with the five-year minimum falling within the calculated 51-to-85-month guidelines range.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court improperly scored OV 10 at 15 points based on predatory conduct. Lenartz’s threats exploiting the victim’s parole status constituted the extortion offense itself, not conduct occurring before the offense as required for predatory conduct. The appellate court declined to decide the prosecution’s alternative theory that Lenartz 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 did not decide whether an alleged knife threat supported 25 points, leaving that theory for remand.
The prosecution conceded, and the court agreed, that OV 19 should have been scored at 10 rather than 25 points because Lenartz’s false police report interfered with the administration of justice but did not threaten the security of a court or penal institution. That correction reduced the total OV score from 60 to 45 and the guidelines range from 51-to-85 months to 45-to-75 months. The court therefore vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing.
Key Takeaways
- Conduct constituting the sentencing offense itself cannot qualify as “preoffense” predatory conduct for purposes of OV 10.
- Dismissed charges may support OV 12 when the record establishes distinct contemporaneous felonious acts that will not result in separate convictions.
- A scoring error that changes the applicable sentencing-guidelines range requires resentencing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the boundary between conduct forming the offense of conviction and separate preoffense conduct used to score victim exploitation. Courts may not characterize the elements or commission of the sentencing offense itself as predatory conduct under OV 10.
The opinion also illustrates the broad scope of de novo resentencing. Although the appellate court rejected or declined to reach several scoring theories, the prosecution and trial court may revisit alternative grounds for scoring OV 10 and OV 12 on remand.