Sentencing; Scoring of OV 4; Victim’s psychological injury; MCL 777.34(1); Serious “psychological injury requiring professional treatment occurred to a victim”; MCL 777.34(1)(a); MCL 777.34(2); People v. Armstrong; People v. McGraw; People v. Sargent; People v. Lampe; People v. Dixon-Bey; MCL 750.530(1)

The court reversed the trial court’s scoring of OV 4 and remanded for the trial court to consider whether C’s victim impact statement might support the scoring of OV 4 against defendant. He pled guilty to armed robbery and felony-firearm. He was sentenced to 168 to 360 months for armed robbery to be served consecutively to 2 years for felony-firearm. He argued the trial court improperly scored OV 4. Specifically, he contended that the record lacked sufficient evidence showing psychological harm to the victim due to his conduct. Defendant’s criminal actions began when he demanded “anything” from victims-H and G, while pointing a gun at H. G refused, leading codefendant-M to shoot him in the leg. Defendant’s criminal conduct, to which he pled guilty, involved the armed robbery of H and G. Likewise, defendant also participated in the armed robbery of C. H did not submit a victim impact statement. G did submit a victim impact statement, which was partially read at defendant’s sentencing. G suffered a gunshot wound to his inner thigh that resulted in a broken bone. Because of this, G underwent surgery to repair the bone and insert a plate. G “stated that following the incident, he did not work for two months, suffered stress due to monetary concerns, and became depressed.” Further, the inability of G’s boss to help him through this period contributed to the difficulties. However, G's victim impact statement addressed injuries resulting solely from the gunshot wound, an act committed by M and not the defendant. Defendant was charged with, and pled guilty to, armed robbery and felony-firearm, both of which were factually independent of M’s act of shooting G in the leg. However, after M shot G, C’s “money, cell phone, gold necklace, and tablet were taken while he was inside the residence.” C was also held at gunpoint with G. The trial court record provided that defendant admitted taking a cell phone from the residence. Thus, it was reasonable to infer that C was a victim of defendant’s conduct of armed robbery. Moreover, C “provided a victim impact statement that indicated a continuing fear that defendant and” M would return. Similarly, C stated that noises caused him to think that defendant and M “did in fact come back, or might come back in the future.” However, the trial court neither addressed nor referenced C at sentencing. While C’s victim impact statement might support the scoring of OV 4, the court “should avoid supplementing or otherwise justifying the trial court’s otherwise insufficient reasoning with reasoning of its own.” The court held that the “trial court erred when it assessed 10 points for OV 4 based on the victim impact statement provided by [G], as the psychological injuries of which he complained . . . related solely to the shooting committed by [M], not the armed robbery committed by defendant.” However, defendant’s participation in the armed robbery of C might reasonably support the scoring of OV 4 against him.