Question as originally presented: I am doing a PSI on a subject who pleaded in four files, 3 of them are felony charges. Under PRV 7, would all these charges count as he pleaded to them all at the same time? There are various dates of the charges, but all are within 90 days of each other. Are these considered concurrent convictions, or is it only pertaining to the single file?
Your specific question has not been addressed by binding legal authority and is ultimately a question of law for the trial court to decide. The statute, MCL 777.57 (PRV 7), instructs that points should be scored for “subsequent or concurrent convictions,” and the statutory language does not include any requirements concerning whether the convictions arise from charges filed in the same case/docket number as the sentencing offense. MCL 777.57(2)(a) specifically instructs: “Score the appropriate point value if the offender was convicted of multiple felony counts or was convicted of a felony after the sentencing offense was committed.” The plain language of MCL 777.57(2)(a) includes dockets containing multiple charges leading to multiple convictions and dockets containing only one charge leading to a conviction occurring concurrent to or after the sentencing offense.
A defendant is convicted of each offense on the day that the defendant pleads guilty and that guilty plea is accepted by the trial court. Each conviction may be counted as a subsequent or concurrent conviction (assuming it is not a felony-firearm conviction, will not result in a mandatory consecutive sentence, or will not result in a consecutive sentence under MCL 333.7401(1), see MCL 777.57(2)(b)-(c)). The date that the offense was committed does not matter for purposes of PRV 7 because PRV 7 is concerned with the date of the conviction. See MCL 777.57. See also People v Watkins, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued July 29, 2014 (Docket Nos. 313390, 313391), p 8, where the Court rejected the defendant’s argument that his convictions should not be considered concurrent because each offense was charged in a separate case file. The Court stated that the defendant’s argument was “meritless because it ignores the plain language of the statute, as well as the purpose of PRV 7, which considers a defendant’s relationship with the criminal system.” The Court explained that the defendant’s convictions were concurrent for purposes of scoring PRV 7, and two cases were filed because the two associated felonies were committed in two different cities. Id.
However, note that where a defendant is convicted of multiple offenses, the number of concurrent convictions does not include the sentencing offense. People v Pickett, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 6, 2004 (Docket No. 246138). Note that unpublished decisions are not binding.