Challenge to the accuracy of the PSIR; MCR 6.425(D)(1)(b) & (D)(2)(a); MCL 771.14(6); Principle that the trial court must respond to any challenge to the accuracy of the PSIR; People v Lloyd; The trial court’s authority to amend the PSIR; MCR 6.429; Timing for filing a challenge to the accuracy of the PSIR; MCR 6.429(B)(3); MCR 7.205(2)(a)

Holding that the trial court erred by finding it did not have the authority to amend defendant’s PSIR, the court vacated its order denying his motion to amend the PSIR, and remanded for the trial court to consider it. He pled guilty to OWI-III and was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 48 to 240 months. On appeal, the court agreed with defendant that the trial court erred by finding it did not have authority to amend the PSIR. It noted he was sentenced on 10/31/22 and filed his motion to amend the PSIR on 3/13/23, which “was within the six-month time frame required to file a challenge to his sentence.” Although he “did not challenge the validity of his sentence in his motion to amend the PSIR, [he] challenged the relevancy and accuracy of information contained in the PSIR.” As such, his “motion challenged the information relied upon in determining a sentence and should be treated as a motion for resentencing.” Because a “‘challenge to the validity of information contained in the PSIR may be raised at sentencing, in a proper motion for resentencing, or in a proper motion to remand,’” and defendant’s “motion was timely, the trial court erred when it concluded that it did not have authority to consider” his request to amend the PSIR.