Cited by

We will not reverse a di strict court’s determination of a defendant’s criminal-history score “absent an abuse of dis cretion.” State v. Maley

To satisfy that burden, “ the state must establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the prior conviction was valid, the defendant was the person involved, and the crime would constitute a felony in Minnesota.” (citi ng State v. Griffin , ).

“[T]he district court may not use out-of-state convictions to calculate a defendant’s criminal-history score unless the state lays fo undation for the court to do so.”

B.5 (2016), provided the state lay s the necessary foundation

The supreme court held that, because “the defendant filed his motion before the time for direct appeal from judgment of conviction had expired,” 6 he “did not bear the ultimate burden of proof.” Id.; see also State v. Maley , d 708, 714-15 (Minn. App. 2006) (holding that the state has the burden of proof on a motion to correct a sentence filed duri ng the direct appeal period).

d 708, 711 (Minn. App. 2006).

“The district court’s determination of a defendant’s criminal-history score will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”

See, e.g., State v. Maurstad , (“[T]he receipt of a mandatory presumptive sentence—which is necessarily predicated on a correct criminal history score under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines—is not a defendant’s right to waive, or logically, forfeit.”); (stating that a defendant has an “absolute right to appeal an illegal sentence” and the “right to appeal an illegal sentence cannot be waived”).

Generally, “[t]he district court’s determination of a defendant’s criminal-history score will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”

(quotation omitted), beyond “a preponderance of the evidence,”

“The district court’s determination of a defendant’s criminal-history score will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”

“The district court’s determination of a defendant’s criminal-history score will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”

(discussing the state’s burden of proof to justify consideration of a defendant’s out-of-state conviction).

But a sentencing court “acts within its discretion when it includes uncertified, but clearly conceded, out-of-state convictions in computing a defendant’s criminal-history score.”

“Minnesota’s Sentencing Guidelines provide uniform standards for the inclusion and weighting of criminal history information that are intended to increase the fairness and equity in determining a defendant’s criminal-history score.” (quotation omitted).

“The state must establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the prior conviction was valid, the defendant was the person involved, and the crime would constitute a felony in Minnesota.”

“The district court’s determination of a defendant’s criminal-history score will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”

“The district court’s determination of a defendant’s criminal-history score will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.”

(“Whether a particular right is waivable; whether the defendant must participate personally in the waiver; whether certain procedures are required for waiver; and whether the defendant’s choice must be particularly informed or voluntary, all depend on the right at stake.”).