Cited by

“[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.”

“[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.”

A district court “must use accurate criminal history scores in order to set mandatory presumptive sentences that comply with the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.”

The district court must “use accurate criminal-history scores in order to set mandatory presumptive sentences that comply with the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.”

(stating that a sentence based on an incorrect criminal-history score is “illegal”).

Accordingly, sentence correction under rule 27.03 is available if, for example, a sentence is premised on an incorrect criminal-history score, departs from the sentencing guidelines without proper support, Amundson, d at 1 Landwehr’s where the defendant invoked both rule 27.03 and the postconviction statute.

6 ( stating “a sentence based on an incorrect criminal history score is an illegal sentence —and therefore, under Minn. R. Crim P. 27.03, subd.

7 A district court “must use accurate criminal history scores in order to set mandatory presumptive sentences that comply with the Mi nnesota Sentencing Guidelines.”

9; d 141, 147-48 (Minn. 2007).

We observe that the district court’s treatment of Keltner’s profanity-laced statements as a request for a downward departure was charitable.

A sentence based on an incorrect criminal-history score is an illegal sentence that may be corrected at any ti me. State v. Maurstad

See State v. Maurstad , -47 (Minn. 2007) (reviewing appellant’s sentencing challenge, even though that argument was not raised at sentencing); Minn. R. Crim.

vision 2(3), which allows defendants to “appeal as of right from any sentence imposed or stayed in a felony case.” Defend ants may use this method to challenge their sentence even when other avenues of appeal may be available, because “a defendant cannot forfeit appellate review of his criminal history score.” n.5 (Minn. 2018) (); n.1 (Minn. App. 2018) (“[A] sentence based on an incorrect criminal-history sc ore is an illegal sentence th at may be corrected on direct appeal, regardless of whethe

-47 (Minn. 2007) (reviewing appellant’s sentencing challenge, even though that argument was not raised at sentencing).

But 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 that may be corrected on direct appeal, regardless of whether the defendant objected to the score at sentencing ,” State v. Strobel , n.1 (Minn. Ap p. 2018), aff’d, (Minn.

8, 2020) .1 However, the supreme court recently vacated this court’s opinion in Yancy and remanded the case back to this court for reconsideration in light of Strobel, Scovel, and State v. Maurstad , d 141 (Minn. 2007).

See State v. Maurstad , (holding that a sentence based on an incorrect criminal-h istory score is an illegal sentence that may be “corrected at a ny time”).

In reply, Ojohn contends that a defendant cannot waive an issue concerning the calculation of a crimin al-history score, in support of that contention.

“[A] defendant may not waive review of his criminal history score calculation.”

(“[A] defendant cannot forfeit review of [their] criminal history score calculation.”).

9 (“The court may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law.”); (“[A] sentence based on an incorrect criminal-history score is an illegal sentence[.

(“[A] defendant cannot forfeit review of his criminal history score calculation.”).

correctable at any time —a defendant may not waive review of his criminal history score calculation.” (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Crim.