People v. Armogeda

Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court held that a defendant whose sentence was based on inaccurate sentencing‑guidelines information and falls outside the corrected guidelines range is entitled to resentencing, and that People v Francisco does not conflict with the advisory‑guidelines framework established in People v Lockridge. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for resentencing, directing the trial court to recalculate the variables and consider the corrected range while retaining discretion to impose the same sentence if reasonable.