Cited by

d 566, 575-76 (Minn. App. 2026) (reversing and remanding “to allow the state to further develop the sentencing record so that the court can make a proper determination” regarding inclusion of a defendant’s out-of-state convictions in his criminal history score at sentencing when the defendant did not object to the inclusion); (“The record indicates that [the defendant] did not object to the district court ’s determination that his out -of-state convictions were felonies.

This court has held that, if the state did not satisfy its burden of proof because an appellant did not challenge the assignment of criminal- history points at sentencing, the appropriate remedy is for the case to be reversed and remanded to allow the state to “further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

t 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).

(remanding with an instruction that the state may develop the record regarding whether out-of-state convictions were felonies when the issue was not raised in the district court), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

at trial waives the issue on appeal.” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

“The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of- state convictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

“The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

(reversing and remanding for the state to develop the sentencing record regarding whether the defendant’s out-of-state prior convictions could support an aggravated sentence), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) (“The record indicates that appellant did not object to the district court’s determination that his out-of-state convictions were felonies.

When, as here, a defendant failed to object to the criminal-history score calculation and the presenting invcestigation report was insufficient to prove the criminal-history score, the proper remedy is to remand the matter for an opportunity for the state to “further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008); see also State v. Gant , n.4 (Minn. App. 2023) (remanding for further proceedings to determine th

When a defendant did not object to the district court’s calculation of their criminal- history score and the state did not carry its burden of proof, the proper remedy is to remand the matter to permit the state “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district 39 court can appropriately make its determination.” State v. Outlaw , rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) .

To meet its burden , the state may need to both demonstrate the commonalities between the Minnesota and non -Minnesota statutes, d 856, 860-62 (Minn. App. 2025), and provide factual information on the precise conduct that led to the defendant’s conviction, rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

(“[A]ppeals to common sense are permitted.”), aff’d, (“[A]ppeals to common sense .

Because Pierre did not contest the inclusion of the Florida convictions in his criminal-history score at the time of sentencing, the state on remand “is permitted to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

Thus, the case should be remanded for resentencing to enable the state “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.”

(permitting the state to further develop the sentencing record to determine whether the out-of-state convictions qualify as felonies).

rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008); Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.B.5.b .

State v. Outlaw , rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

See State v. Outlaw , (reversing and remanding for the state to develop the sentencing record, which lacked proof that defendant’s out-of -state prior convictions could support an aggravated sentence), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

“The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

When, as here, a defendant does not challenge his criminal-history score at the time of sentencing , we will reverse and remand for further proceedings to permit the state to “develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its 9 determination.” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

When reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, “we are limited to determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion reached by the [fact-finder].” (reviewing appellant’s claim that evidence was insufficient to show a pattern of criminal conduct under career-offender statute), rev. 2 A Blakely trial is conducted to determine whether aggravating sentencing factors exist, and “[a] criminal defendant has the right to a trial by jury or by

If we determine that the state did not satisfy its burden of proof because the appellant did not challenge the assignment of criminal-history points at the time of sentencing, the case should be reversed and remanded, and the state should be permitted on remand to “develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

“The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state convictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

Because Bauer did not challenge his criminal-history score at the time of sentencing, the appropriate remedy is to reverse and remand for further proceedings in which the state “is permitted to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

Because Henry did not challenge his criminal-history-score calculation before the district court, we remand to the district court to allow the state to “further develop the sentencing record.” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

(reversing and remanding the district court’s sentencing decision and noting that the state would be able “to further develop the sentencing record” on remand to allow the district court to “appropriately make its [sentencing] determination”), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

’” (), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

If the state’s evidence does not support the score used at sentencing and the defendant did not object, the case must be remanded to allow the state the opportunity “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

a defendant does not object to the district court’s calculation of their criminal-history score and the state’s evidence does not support the score used at appellant’s sentencing hearing, the proper remedy is to remand the matter and give the state the opportunity “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008); aff’d

(concluding that, on remand, the state was permitted to further develop the record on out-of- state convictions because the defendant did not object to the district court’s determination regarding the convictions), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008); (Minn

Because Paulson did not object to the district court’s determination that his out-of-state convictions were felonies, the state is “permitted to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

(reaching a similar conclusion), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) III.

1 We also decline to remand this case to the district court as we did in State v. Outlaw , (remanding to the district court to allow the state to further develop the sentencing record and meet its burden to establish the defendant’s criminal-history score where the defendant did not object to his criminal-history score), rev. denied (Minn. Jul.

If a defendant did not object at sentencing to the district court’s inclusion of an out- of-state conviction in his criminal -history score, the proper remedy is to remand the case and permit the state “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

Because the record does not contain sufficient information about Henderson-Bey’s Illinois conv iction for the district court to determine whether the state laid the foundation fo r the court to assign Henderson-Bey a criminal-history point, we reverse the district court on this point and remand for additional proceedings.8 See State v. Outlaw , (permitting the state to further develop the sentencing record for the district court to determine whether to include out-of-state convictions), rev. den

d 349, 356 (Minn. App. 2008).

However, because Lugo failed to object to the 6 inclusion of this offense in his criminal-history score, and the state was never provided an opportunity to submit eviden ce regarding it, the proper re medy is to remand for an opportunity for the state “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).