Motion to withdraw a plea; MCR 6.302(A) & (B)(2); Defects in the plea-taking process; The trial court’s failure to inform defendant that mandatory lifetime electronic monitoring (LEM) was a required condition of his sentence; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 10; MCL 777.40(1)(a); People v Cannon; “Predatory conduct”; Entitlement to resentencing

The court held that defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea to CSC I “because the plea-taking court failed to inform him that LEM was a sentencing requirement for his conviction.” Further, the trial court erred in scoring 15 points for OV 10. Thus, the court remanded the case to the trial court to give him “the opportunity to withdraw his plea.” If he elects not to do so, “he is entitled to resentencing.” The prosecution conceded on appeal that defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea due to the defect in the plea-taking process related to LEM, and the court agreed. “The remedy for a plea that failed to comply with MCR 6.302(B) is to permit the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea.” Because he may elect not to do so, the court also addressed his claim that the trial court erred in scoring OV 10. It agreed that he “undoubtedly engaged in predatory conduct during his subsequent sexual assaults by providing the victim with gifts or demanding sexual favors in exchange for items the victim needed.” However, there was no evidence in the record “to support the trial court’s factual determination that defendant threatened or bribed the victim during the sentencing offense. Because [he] is entitled to be sentenced on accurate information and a 5-point reduction in defendant’s OV score alters the applicable sentencing grid,” he was entitled to resentencing.