Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d 141.

239 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Albert Lee Mahone, III Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Woodrow West Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Timothy Richard Gilles v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Chad Edward Danberry Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[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.”
Toby Earl Johnson, Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Eric Demont Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Douglas Paulson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[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.”
State of Minnesota v. Courtney Wade Locke Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of: W. S. A., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. James Darnell Posey Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jared Devlin Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A district court “must use accurate criminal history scores in order to set mandatory presumptive sentences that comply with the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.”
State of Minnesota v. Suvwe Peter Ighovojah Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The district court must “use accurate criminal-history scores in order to set mandatory presumptive sentences that comply with the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.”
State of Minnesota v. Earl Vincent Grasty Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(stating that a sentence based on an incorrect criminal-history score is “illegal”).
State of Minnesota v. Davonte Michael Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Scott Landwehr Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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.
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Gershone Gibbs Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota vs Jason Peter Bird Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Artavies Raymone Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Erik Harrison Gawtry Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Carlos Orlandos Smith, Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lemar Forest Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Clifford Monroe Skinaway, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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.
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Rafie Mullins Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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.”
Joshua Raymond Armendariz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
9; d 141, 147-48 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Irfan Beganovic Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thurmon Keltner Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We observe that the district court’s treatment of Keltner’s profanity-laced statements as a request for a downward departure was charitable.
State of Minnesota v. Frederick Duane Fisher Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Tywan George Christopher, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A sentence based on an incorrect criminal-history score is an illegal sentence that may be corrected at any ti me. State v. Maurstad
State of Minnesota v. Dequarn Markeyth Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Darren Ray Liimatainen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Braxton Monte Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Eugene Francis Cuypers v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Mathew Timothy Scully Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Arturo Macarro Gutierrez Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Maurstad , -47 (Minn. 2007) (reviewing appellant’s sentencing challenge, even though that argument was not raised at sentencing); Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Jose Armando Padilla Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Paul Holm Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allen Gustafson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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
State of Minnesota v. Billy Gene Hunt Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Alipio Santiago Veitia Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-47 (Minn. 2007) (reviewing appellant’s sentencing challenge, even though that argument was not raised at sentencing).
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Douglas Flantz Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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.
State of Minnesota v. Jordan Antonio Urena-Muro Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Ryan Shappell Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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”).
State of Minnesota v. Milo Calvin Ojohn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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.
State of Minnesota v. Conrad James Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[A] defendant may not waive review of his criminal history score calculation.”
State of Minnesota v. Roy Darnell Barron Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Cardinale Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“[A] defendant cannot forfeit review of [their] criminal history score calculation.”).
State of Minnesota v. Lukas Roy Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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[.
State of Minnesota v. Sandy Woodrow Yancy Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. John Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Moses Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2020