Background
Sheri Lynn Lenartz’s former boyfriend, who was on parole, came to her apartment to exchange belongings. After he refused her request to resume their relationship, Lenartz threatened to falsely accuse him of molesting her granddaughter, prevented him from leaving, and repeatedly demanded sex. The two ultimately performed oral sex on each other, 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 imposed concurrent prison terms of 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 OV 10 was improperly scored at 15 points on the trial court’s stated rationale. Lenartz’s threats exploiting the victim’s parole status constituted the extortion itself, not preoffense 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 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 CSC-III by coercing him to perform cunnilingus. It declined to decide whether an alleged knife threat supported 25 points. The parties agreed that OV 19 should have been scored at 10 rather than 25 points because Lenartz interfered with the administration of justice through a false police report but did not threaten the security of a court or penal institution. That correction reduced the overall score to 45 points and the guidelines range to 45 to 75 months, requiring resentencing.
Key Takeaways
- Conduct constituting the sentencing offense itself cannot qualify as preoffense predatory conduct under OV 10.
- Dismissed charges may support OV 12 when the underlying acts are distinct, contemporaneous felonies that will not result in separate convictions.
- An offense-variable error requires resentencing when correcting it changes the applicable guidelines range.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the distinction between conduct comprising an offense and earlier conduct that independently creates or enhances a victim’s vulnerability. It also illustrates that Michigan courts score OV 12 by counting distinct criminal acts, including acts underlying dismissed charges, rather than merely counting potential charges.
Because resentencing is de novo, the prosecution may renew its alternative theories for scoring OV 10 and OV 12. The appellate court therefore vacated Lenartz’s sentences without conclusively fixing every offense-variable score that may apply on remand.