Cited by

-06 (Minn. 2019); n.5 (Minn. 2018); -48 (Minn. 2007).

bstantially the same time and place, and (2) whether the conduct was motivated by an 1 The state argues that Sanchez has forfeited his right to appeal his criminal-history score because he failed to “present th[e] issue to the district court in some meaningful way.” It is well-established that appellate review of a defendant’s criminal-history score may not be forfeited, “because a sentence based on an incorrect criminal history score is an illegal sentence,” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

While Hshee did not raise this issue to the district court, “a defendant may not waive review of his criminal history score calculation.”

Although Lenear did not raise this issue in the district court, the argument is not forfeited because “a defendant may not waive review of his criminal history score calculation.”

9, correctable ‘at any time’—a defendant may not [forfeit] review of his criminal history score calculation.” n.7 (Minn. 2023) (“[A] right may be forfeited by the failure to make timely assertion of the right, while waiver is the voluntary relinquishment of a known right.” (quotations omitted)).

(explaining that under Minn. R. Crim.

9; (providing that “a defendant may not waive review of his criminal history score calculation”).

The postconviction court also failed to articulate that a district court has an independent responsibility “to ensure the accuracy of every defendant’s criminal history score.” (emphasis added).

“[A] sentence based on an incorrect criminal history score is an illegal sentence.”

determin[ed] the date of Reimer’s offense without receiving a Blakely waiver”); (concluding that, “because a sentence based on an incorrect criminal history score is an illegal sentence,” a defendant “may not waive review of his criminal history score 15 calculation”).

A “sentence based on an incorrect criminal history score is an illegal sentence” that is “correctable ‘at any time.’” (quoting Minn. R. Crim.

Barr did not raise this issue in the district court, but “a defendant cannot waive the right to appeal an illegal sentence.”

“[S]entences must be based on correct criminal history scores, as these scores are the mechanism district courts use to ensure that defendants with similar criminal histories receive approximately equal sanctions for the same offense.”

d 303, 305-06 (Minn. 2019); n.5 (Minn. 2018); State 9 v. Maurstad

(holding that a sentence based on an incorrect criminal-history score is illegal and may be corrected “at any time” (quoting Minn. R. Crim.

d 141, 147 (Minn. 2007).

2 61 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotation omitted) (holding that a motion was proper under rule 27.03 7 when it challenged a sentence on constitutional grounds), aff’d, (holding the same for a motion challenging a sentence based on an incorrect criminal- history score); (holding the same for a motion challenging an upward departure based solely on a plea agreement).

Though neither party discussed this sentencing issue, “ it is the responsibility of appellate courts to decide cases in accordance with law ” irrespective of the parties’ “oversights, lack of research, [or] failure to specify issues or to cite relevant authorities.” n.7 (Minn. 1990) (quotation omitted) ; -48 (Minn. 2007) (stating that a defendant cannot waive or forfeit review of an illegal sentence).