Background
Sheri Lynn Lenartz’s former boyfriend, who was on parole, went to her apartment to exchange belongings. When he refused 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 with her. The two ultimately performed oral sex on each other, and the victim recorded the encounter. Lenartz later falsely reported that he had molested her granddaughter and assaulted her, but the recording exposed the false report.
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 assessed 60 offense-variable points, including 15 points under OV 10 for predatory conduct, 10 points under OV 12 for contemporaneous felonious acts, and 25 points under OV 19 for threatening the security of a penal institution or court. It imposed concurrent prison terms of 5 to 20 years for extortion and 2 to 5 years for attempted CSC-III.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that OV 10 was incorrectly scored at 15 points on the trial court’s stated rationale. Lenartz’s threats exploiting the victim’s parole status constituted the extortion offense itself, not conduct occurring before the offense, and therefore could not qualify as “predatory conduct.” The court declined to decide the prosecution’s alternative argument that Lenartz engaged in predatory conduct by luring the victim to her apartment, leaving that issue for the trial court to consider at the de novo resentencing.
The court upheld at least 10 points under 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. The parties agreed that OV 19 should have been scored at 10 points for interfering with the administration of justice through a false police report, rather than 25 points for threatening institutional or court security. That correction lowered the guidelines range from 51–85 months to 45–75 months, requiring resentencing.
Key Takeaways
- Conduct constituting the sentencing offense itself is not “preoffense conduct” supporting a predatory-conduct score under OV 10.
- Dismissed charges may support OV 12 when the underlying acts are distinct, contemporaneous felonies 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 temporal limit on OV 10: predatory conduct must precede the sentencing offense and cannot merely duplicate the conduct establishing that offense. It also illustrates how distinct acts underlying dismissed charges can still affect OV 12.
Because resentencing is de novo, the circuit court may reconsider the disputed offense variables on alternative grounds not resolved in the appeal, including whether Lenartz lured the victim and whether an alleged knife threat constituted a third contemporaneous felony.