Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 771 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14 (2026)

Presentence investigation report; contents; information related to victim prohibited from inclusion; information exempted from disclosure; amendment or alteration; review of report; challenge; findings; copies.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE


Act 175 of 1927


771.14 Presentence investigation report; contents; information related to victim prohibited from inclusion; information exempted from disclosure; amendment or alteration; review of report; challenge; findings; copies.

Sec. 14.

    (1) Before the court sentences a person charged with a felony or a person who is a licensee or registrant under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838, as described in section 1(14) of chapter IX, and, if directed by the court, in any other case in which a person is charged with a misdemeanor within the jurisdiction of the court, the probation officer shall inquire into the antecedents, character, and circumstances of the person, and shall report in writing to the court.

    (2) A presentence investigation report prepared under subsection (1) shall not include any address or telephone number for the home, workplace, school, or place of worship of any victim or witness, or a family member of any victim or witness, unless an address is used to identify the place of the crime or to impose conditions of release from custody that are necessary for the protection of a named individual. Upon request, any other address or telephone number that would reveal the location of a victim or witness or a family member of a victim or witness shall be exempted from disclosure unless an address is used to identify the place of the crime or to impose conditions of release from custody that are necessary for the protection of a named individual. A presentence investigation report prepared under subsection (1) shall include all of the following:

    (a) An evaluation of and a prognosis for the person's adjustment in the community based on factual information contained in the report.

    (b) If requested by a victim, any written impact statement submitted by the victim under the William Van Regenmorter crime victim's rights act, 1985 PA 87, MCL 780.751 to 780.834.

    (c) A specific written recommendation for disposition based on the evaluation and other information as prescribed by the assistant director of the department of corrections in charge of probation.

    (d) A statement prepared by the prosecuting attorney as to whether consecutive sentencing is required or authorized by law.

    (e) For a person to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines set forth in chapter XVII, all of the following:

    (i) For each conviction for which a consecutive sentence is authorized or required, the sentence grid in part 6 of chapter XVII that contains the recommended minimum sentence range.

    (ii) Unless otherwise provided in subparagraph (i), for each crime having the highest crime class, the sentence grid in part 6 of chapter XVII that contains the recommended minimum sentence range.

    (iii) Unless otherwise provided in subparagraph (i), the computation that determines the recommended minimum sentence range for the crime having the highest crime class.

    (iv) A specific statement as to the applicability of intermediate sanctions, as defined in section 31 of chapter IX.

    (v) The recommended sentence.

    (f) If a person is to be sentenced for a felony or for a misdemeanor involving the illegal delivery, possession, or use of alcohol or a controlled substance, a statement that the person is licensed or registered under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838, if applicable.

    (g) Diagnostic opinions that are available and not exempted from disclosure under subsection (3).

    (h) A statement as to whether the person has provided the identification documents referenced in subsection (9)(b).

    (3) The court may exempt from disclosure in the presentence investigation report information or a diagnostic opinion that might seriously disrupt a program of rehabilitation or sources of information obtained on a promise of confidentiality. If a part of the presentence investigation report is not disclosed, the court shall state on the record the reasons for its action and inform the defendant and his or her attorney that information has not been disclosed. The action of the court in exempting information from disclosure is subject to appellate review. Information or a diagnostic opinion exempted from disclosure under this subsection shall be specifically noted in the presentence investigation report.

    (4) If a prepared presentence investigation report is amended or altered before sentencing by the supervisor of the probation officer who prepared the report or by any other person who has the authority to amend or alter a presentence investigation report, the probation officer may request that the court strike his or her name from the report and the court shall comply with that request.

    (5) The court shall permit the prosecutor, the defendant's attorney, and the defendant to review the presentence investigation report before sentencing.

    (6) At the time of sentencing, either party may challenge, on the record, the accuracy or relevancy of any information contained in the presentence investigation report. The court may order an adjournment to permit the parties to prepare a challenge or a response to a challenge. If the court finds on the record that the challenged information is inaccurate or irrelevant, that finding shall be made a part of the record, the presentence investigation report shall be amended, and the inaccurate or irrelevant information shall be stricken accordingly before the report is transmitted to the department of corrections.

    (7) A copy of the report described under subsection (5) and the amended report described under subsection (6) shall be provided to the prosecutor and the defendant's attorney or the defendant if he or she is not represented by an attorney. The copy of the report described under subsection (5) shall be provided not less than 2 business days before sentencing unless that period is waived by the defendant. The prosecutor and the defendant's attorney or the defendant if he or she is not represented by an attorney have the right to retain a copy of the report and the amended report provided under this subsection.

    (8) On appeal, the defendant's attorney, or the defendant if proceeding pro se, shall be provided with a copy of the presentence investigation report and any attachments to the report with the exception of any information exempted from disclosure by the court under subsection (3).

    (9) If the person is committed to a state correctional facility, both of the following apply:

    (a) A copy or amended copy of the presentence investigation report and, if a psychiatric examination of the person has been made for the court, a copy of the psychiatric report shall accompany the commitment papers. If the person is sentenced by fine or imprisonment or placed on probation or other disposition of his or her case is made by the court, a copy or amended copy of the presentence investigation report, including a psychiatric examination report made in the case, shall be filed with the department of corrections.

    (b) The person shall be provided notification that provides an explanation of the importance of obtaining an operator's license or state personal identification card upon release from incarceration and lists the personal identification documents described in section 34c of the corrections code of 1953, 1953 PA 232, MCL 791.234c, necessary for obtaining an operator's license or state personal identification card. The notification also shall contain a request that the person obtain and provide those documents to the department of corrections. The notification also shall state that the department of corrections will retain in the file maintained for the person any identification documents provided by the person until he or she is released from secure confinement. Any identification documents previously provided by the person shall accompany the commitment papers.

    (10) A prisoner under the jurisdiction of the department of corrections shall be provided with a copy of any presentence investigation report in the department's possession about that prisoner, except for information exempted from disclosure under subsection (3), not less than 30 days before a parole interview is conducted under section 35 of the corrections code of 1953, 1953 PA 232, MCL 791.235.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17384 ;-- Am. 1931, Act 308, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- Am. 1937, Act 256, Imd. Eff. July 22, 1937 ;-- Am. 1939, Act 286, Eff. Sept. 29, 1939 ;-- CL 1948, 771.14 ;-- Am. 1979, Act 81, Eff. Dec. 31, 1979 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 61, Eff. Mar. 30, 1983 ;-- Am. 1985, Act 88, Imd. Eff. July 10, 1985 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 85, Eff. Apr. 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 445, Eff. Feb. 1, 1995 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 15, 1998 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 279, Eff. Oct. 1, 2000 ;-- Am. 2010, Act 247, Imd. Eff. Dec. 14, 2010 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 27, Imd. Eff. Feb. 23, 2012

Constitutionality Notes:

    A postconviction presentence psychiatric examination of a defendant, ordered by the trial court in the presence of defense counsel without objection and conducted two weeks later outside the presence of counsel, which was referred to by the trial court in imposing sentence, did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. People v Wright, 431 Mich 282; 430 NW2d 133 (1988).

Compiler's Notes:

    Section 3 of Act 210 of 1979 provides:

    “The provisions of Act Nos. 81 and 89 of the Public Acts of 1979 shall not take effect in a county with a population of 1.5 million or more prior to a majority vote of the elected members of the county's board of commissioners to place the question of the creation of a charter commission under the terms of enacted Senate Bill No. 652 before the county electorate. Subsequent to the above action by the board of commissioners, funds appropriated for probation services for a county with a population of 1.5 million or more shall become immediately effective, and shall be retroactive to the extent of the funds provided.”

    Section 4 of Act 210 of 1979 provides:

    “Implementation of Act Nos. 81 and 89 of the Public Acts of 1979 shall not be effective in counties which refuse to provide probation support costs as required in those acts.”

FormerLaw Notes:

    See section 14 of Act 105 of 1913, being CL 1915, § 2042.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 255 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: People v. Lopez, 854 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Lopez, 854 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 9× “21(2) had referred to “§ 14 of chapter XI (MCL 771.14)” instead of Chapter IX, then the author would have agreed with Mack’s conclusion.”
People v. MacK, 695 N.W.2d 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “14 provides in relevant parts: (2) A presentence investigation report prepared under subsection (1) shall include all of the following: *127 (e) For a person to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines set forth in chapter XVII, all of the following: (1) For each conviction…”
People v. Johnigan, 696 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “Mack does correctly note that MCL 771.14 only requires the presentence investigation report to include guidelines scoring for the highest crime class.”
People v. Waclawski, 780 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “Because the Department of Corrections makes critical decisions concerning a defendant’s status on the basis of information contained in the PSIR, the PSIR should accurately reflect any determination the sentencing judge has made regarding the accuracy or relevance of its…”
People v. Smith, 378 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 8× “When Thompson was sentenced in 1981, MCL 771.14; MSA 28.1144 provided: [T]he probation officer shall inquire into the antecedents, character, and circumstances of the person, and shall report in writing to the court.”
People v. Wesley, 411 N.W.2d 159 (Mich. 1987). · cites it 6× “MCL 771.14; MSA 28.1144; People v Lee, 391 Mich 618 ; 218 NW2d 655 (1974); People v Carter, 128 Mich App 541, 550 ; 341 NW2d 128 (1983).”
Howe v. Detroit Free Press, Inc, 487 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. 1992). · cites it 8× “See MCL 771.14; MSA 28.1144. The probation officer is a nonadversarial adviser to the court whose function it is to collect and evaluate information concerning the life and character of the subject and to make recommendations.”
People v. Miles, 559 N.W.2d 299 (Mich. 1997). · cites it 4× “§ 771.14; M.S.A. § 28.1144. Presentence reports "inquire into the antecedents, character, and circumstances of the person," M.”
People v. Claypool, 684 N.W.2d 278 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 4× “§ 771.14 can include hearsay, character evidence, prior convictions, and alleged criminal activity for which the defendant was not charged or convicted.”
People v. Fleming, 410 N.W.2d 266 (Mich. 1987). · cites it 4× “A presentence report must be prepared for the trial judge's review before the judge sentences a defendant convicted of a felony, MCL 771.14(1); MSA 28.1144(1). This report may include information about a defendant that was not admissible nor admitted at defendant's trial or plea…”
In the Matter of Del Rio, 256 N.W.2d 727 (Mich. 1978). · cites it 4× “Sentences defendants in violation of MCLA 771.14; MSA 28.1144 and Recorder's Court Rule 29.”
People v. Peltola, 803 N.W.2d 140 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 2× “(2) If the defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, subject to [MCL 771.14], score each offense as provided in this part [MCL 777.”
Show all 255 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(1) — 20 cases
People v. Miles, 559 N.W.2d 299 (Mich. 1997). “§ 771.14; M.S.A. § 28.1144. Presentence reports "inquire into the antecedents, character, and circumstances of the person," M.”
People v. Fleming, 410 N.W.2d 266 (Mich. 1987). “A presentence report must be prepared for the trial judge's review before the judge sentences a defendant convicted of a felony, MCL 771.14(1); MSA 28.1144(1). This report may include information about a defendant that was not admissible nor admitted at defendant's trial or plea…”
People of Michigan v. Lonnie James Arnold, 918 N.W.2d 164 (Mich. 2018).
People v. Wright, 430 N.W.2d 133 (Mich. 1988).
People v. Smith, 470 N.W.2d 70 (Mich. 1991).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(2) — 9 cases
People v. MacK, 695 N.W.2d 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “14 provides in relevant parts: (2) A presentence investigation report prepared under subsection (1) shall include all of the following: *127 (e) For a person to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines set forth in chapter XVII, all of the following: (1) For each conviction…”
People v. Johnigan, 696 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “Mack does correctly note that MCL 771.14 only requires the presentence investigation report to include guidelines scoring for the highest crime class.”
Howe v. Detroit Free Press, Inc, 487 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. 1992). “See MCL 771.14; MSA 28.1144. The probation officer is a nonadversarial adviser to the court whose function it is to collect and evaluate information concerning the life and character of the subject and to make recommendations.”
People of Michigan v. Ronald Williams, 928 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People v. Mills, 377 N.W.2d 361 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(2)(a) — 6 cases
People v. Wybrecht, 564 N.W.2d 903 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
People of Michigan v. John David Vanderpool (Mich. 2020).
People of Michigan v. Norman Paul Veit (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Elmore Nichols Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. David Maurice Lyons (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(2)(b) — 1 case
People v. McAllister, 616 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(2)(c) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Paul Dean Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(2)(d) — 2 cases
People v. Jackson, 445 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
People v. Strunk, 431 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(2)(e) — 25 cases
People v. Lopez, 854 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “21(2) had referred to “§ 14 of chapter XI (MCL 771.14)” instead of Chapter IX, then the author would have agreed with Mack’s conclusion.”
People of Michigan v. Ronald Williams, 928 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People v. Connor, 531 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
People Of Mi V Nicholas Scott Reynolds (Mich. 2021).
People of Michigan v. Nicholas Scott Reynolds (Mich. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(2)(e)(i) — 8 cases
People v. MacK, 695 N.W.2d 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “14 provides in relevant parts: (2) A presentence investigation report prepared under subsection (1) shall include all of the following: *127 (e) For a person to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines set forth in chapter XVII, all of the following: (1) For each conviction…”
People of Michigan v. Eddie Lamar Wright (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
People of Michigan v. Steven Joseph Lepper (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People of Michigan v. Craig Richard Pakosz (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
People of Michigan v. Craig Richard Pakosz (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(2)(e)(ii) — 16 cases
People v. MacK, 695 N.W.2d 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “14 provides in relevant parts: (2) A presentence investigation report prepared under subsection (1) shall include all of the following: *127 (e) For a person to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines set forth in chapter XVII, all of the following: (1) For each conviction…”
People v. Lopez, 854 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “21(2) had referred to “§ 14 of chapter XI (MCL 771.14)” instead of Chapter IX, then the author would have agreed with Mack’s conclusion.”
People v. Johnigan, 696 N.W.2d 724 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “Mack does correctly note that MCL 771.14 only requires the presentence investigation report to include guidelines scoring for the highest crime class.”
People of Michigan v. Gregory Wines, 916 N.W.2d 855 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
People Of Mi V Nicholas Scott Reynolds (Mich. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(2)(e)(iii) — 7 cases
People Of Mi V Nicholas Scott Reynolds (Mich. 2021).
People of Michigan v. Nicholas Scott Reynolds (Mich. 2021).
People of Michigan v. Miguel Aguilar-Soto (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Od People of Michigan v. Brian William Furlong (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
People of Michigan v. Bobby Jay Fisk (Mich. 2012).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(3) — 1 case
Howe v. Detroit Free Press, Inc, 487 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. 1992). “See MCL 771.14; MSA 28.1144. The probation officer is a nonadversarial adviser to the court whose function it is to collect and evaluate information concerning the life and character of the subject and to make recommendations.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(4) — 2 cases
People v. Daniels, 386 N.W.2d 609 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
People v. Shanes, 399 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(5) — 20 cases
People v. Harper, 739 N.W.2d 523 (Mich. 2007).
People v. Sharp, 481 N.W.2d 773 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
People v. Fleming, 410 N.W.2d 266 (Mich. 1987). “A presentence report must be prepared for the trial judge's review before the judge sentences a defendant convicted of a felony, MCL 771.14(1); MSA 28.1144(1). This report may include information about a defendant that was not admissible nor admitted at defendant's trial or plea…”
People v. Martinez, 532 N.W.2d 863 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
People v. Johnson, 513 N.W.2d 824 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(6) — 68 cases
People v. Waclawski, 780 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “Because the Department of Corrections makes critical decisions concerning a defendant’s status on the basis of information contained in the PSIR, the PSIR should accurately reflect any determination the sentencing judge has made regarding the accuracy or relevance of its…”
People v. Maben, 884 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
People v. Callon, 662 N.W.2d 501 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
People v. Lloyd, 774 N.W.2d 347 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
People v. Russell, 656 N.W.2d 817 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(7) — 2 cases
People v. Wright, 430 N.W.2d 133 (Mich. 1988).
People of Michigan v. Brenton Michael Thornton (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(8) — 1 case
People v. McAllister, 616 N.W.2d 203 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(9) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Rogan Edward Lampe (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.14(e)(ii) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Gerald Lynn Allen (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
People of Michigan v. Ray Weldon Garrett (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.