Cited by

(“[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.

Rodriguez contends that the post-conviction court erred by applying Knaffla on the ground that he is allowed to challenge his sentence “at any time,” as recognized by rule 27.03, subdivision 9, of the rules of criminal procedure and State v. Maurstad

State v. Maurstad , d 141, 151 (Minn. 2007).

[and] a defe ndant may not waive revi ew of his criminal history score calculation.” State v. Maurstad , review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) (providing that an unauthorized sent ence includes one that is calculated on an incorrect criminal history score).

Because a defendant may not waive review of his criminal -history-score calculation , we disagree.

Although Dahl did not object to the calculation of his criminal-history score at trial, the supreme court has conclude d that a criminal defendant cannot forfeit or waive review of his criminal-history score calculation.1 -48 (Minn. 2007).

See Scovel , d at 553 n.5 ("A defendant cannot forfeit appellate review of his criminal history score."); State v. Maurstad , , 147 (Minn. 2007) (noting that a defendant can neither waive nor forfeit *306 appellate review of his criminal-history score "because a sentence based on an incorrect criminal history score is an illegal sentence"); see also Minn. R. Crim.

See State v. Maurstad , (noting that “a defendant cannot forfeit review of [the defenda nt’s] criminal history score calculation”).

d 141, 147 (Minn. 2007).

To effectuate this policy, “sentences must be based on correct criminal-history scores, as these scores are the mechanism district courts use to ensure that defendants with similar crimin al histories receive approximately equal sanctions for the same offense.” State v. Maurstad

But “a defendant may not waive review of his criminal history score.”

10 “‘[W]hen the language of a criminal law is ambiguous, we construe it narrowly according to the rule of lenity.’” Leathers, d at 611 (quoting State v. Maurstad , ).

State v. Maurstad , , 147 (Minn. 2007).

Appellate review of a defendant’s crimi nal-history score may not 5 be forfeited, “because a sentence based on an incorrect criminal hi story score is an illegal sent ence.” (Minn. App .

9, [is] correctable ‘at any time’—a defendant may not waive review of his criminal history score calculation.”

If a criminal defe ndant does not object to the cal culation of his score at sentencing, he may still challenge the score on appeal because he “may not waive review of his criminal history score calculation.”

convicted felons with similar relevant sentencing criteria should receive similar sanctions...."); see also State v. Maurstad , , 147 (Minn. 2007) ("In order to effectuate the ...

But “a district court ‘must use accurate criminal history scores.’” 14 ().

State v. Maurstad , , 147 (Minn. 2007).

State v. Maurstad , , 148 (Minn. 2007) (citing State v. Zeimet , , 793 (Minn. 2005) ).

Here, Dale is claiming that his sentence was illegal, and the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that an illegal sentence may be corrected “at any time.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.

Appellant cites to State v. Maurstad for the principle that “a defendant cannot forfeit [or waive] review of his criminal-history score calculation” and may correct his score “at any time.” -48 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).

(remanding a case for resentencing based on an erroneously assigned custody -status point).

State v. Maurstad , , 14 8-50 (Minn. 2007).

*728 Generally, a criminal defendant may neither waive nor forfeit the issue of a proper and correct criminal history score, an issue which is fundamental to the state’s “public policy to maintain uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing.” -47 (Minn. 2007) ().

The district court concluded that it did not have authority to modify Provost’s sentence because his 48-month sentence was “still authorized.” The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a district court “must use accurate criminal history scores in order to set mandatory presumptive sentences that comply with the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.”