Cited by

360 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

If the state fails to meet its burden of proof and the defendant does not object to the calculation of his or he r criminal-history score, we remand to allow the state “to further develop the sentencing r ecord so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

See Strobel, d at 577 (permitting the state “to develop the record regarding the type and amount of controlled substance underlying” the prior conviction); (remanding with similar instructions where the defendant “did not object to the district court’s de termination that his out -of-state convictions were felonies”), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

review denied (Minn. Jul.

State v. Outlaw , review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008); (citing Outlaw to support a remand to supplement the sentencing record), aff’d

review denied (Minn. Mar.

review denied (Minn. May 6, 2008).

(remanding with instructions that the state be allowed to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately determine defendant’s criminal-history score, where the defendant failed to object to the criminal - history-score calculation at sentencing), review d

When a defendant fails to object to the district court’s cal culation of the CHS and the state’s evidence is insufficient to carry its burden of proof as to the CHS, the proper remedy is to remand the matter to give the state an opportunity “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008); see also State v. Strobel, 921 aff’d

When an appellant fails to object to the district court’s criminal-history-score calculation and the state did not carry its burden at sentencing, the proper remedy is to reverse and remand “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” review denied 9 (Minn. July 15, 2008).

review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008), in support of this alternative argument.

On remand, the dist rict court should provide the state an opportunity “to further develop the sentenci ng record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” State v. Outlaw , review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

Because Mullins did not object to the district court’s calculation of his 9 criminal-history score and the state’s evidence was insufficient to carry its burden of proof, we remand the matter “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

See State v. Outlaw , (concluding that if the state’s evidence is insufficient to carry its burden of proof as to the defendant’s criminal-history score, the proper remedy was to remand the matter for an opportunity for the state “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriate

13 When a defendant fails to object to the district court’s calculation of his criminal- history score and the state’s evidence was insufficient to carry its burden of proof as to the 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.” review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008); see also, e.g., Reece, d at 826.

(reversing and remanding for the district court to determine the number of out-of-state convictions that constituted prior felonies), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

See State v. Outlaw , (reversing and remanding for district court to determine whether out -of-state convictions can be counted as felonies for an enhanced sentence), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

But deciding which “evidence to pr esent and which witnesses to call at trial are tactical decisions properly left to the discretion of trial counsel.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

State v. Outlaw , -56 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

-57 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

[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).

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

(citing State v. Outlaw , , 356 (Minn. App. 2008), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) (remanding with similar instructions where the defendant "did not object to the district court's determination that his out-of-state convictions were felonies")).

As a rule, “[t]he state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence ‘the facts necessary to justify consideration of out-of-state c onvictions in determining a defendant’s criminal history score.’” (), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

See State v. Outlaw , d 349, 355 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) (indicating that because “appellant did not object to the district court’s determination that his out-of-state convictions were felonies,” the state, on remand, was “permitte d to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court [could] ap

See State v. Outlaw , (permitting, on remand, further development of the sentencing record), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008); see also Rhoades, d at 138 n.3, 140 (reversing sentence imposed for one count of possession of child pornography where state conceded that two convictions and sentences may ha

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

See State v. Outlaw , d 349, 356 (Minn. App. 2008) (remanding the issue of whether out-of-state convictions were felonies for sentencing purpose s, and permitting the state on r emand “to further develop the sentencing record”), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

5-56 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

See, (allowing the state to further develop the record on remand because defendant did not object to the district court’s determination that his out -of-state convictions were felonies) , review denied (Minn. 27 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.” State v. Outlaw , (quotation omitted), 9 review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) .

-57 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

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 .

See Gorman, d at 9-10 (finding pattern of criminal conduct for convictions that “involved assaultive behavior”); review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010) (finding pattern of criminal conduct for crimes committed to support defendant’s illegal drug habit); review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) (finding pattern of criminal conduct in defendant’s seven prior burglary convictions).

review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) .

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

review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

–56 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

A sentence that is “based on an incorrect criminal history score is an illegal sentence.” review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

See State v. Outlaw , , 356 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) (stating that because a defendant "did not object to the district court's determination that his out-of-state convictions were felonies," the state "is permitted [on remand] to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriatel

When a defendant does not object to a district court’s determination that his out-of-state conviction s are felonies, the state “is permitted to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) .

review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

review denied 1 Appellant is aware of this: he argues in his brief that the DSRA “reduced the severity of most fifth-degree controlled-substance crimes” and that “a fifth -degree possession controlled substance is now generally a gross misdeme

review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).

Although the state bears the burden of proving a defendant’s out -of-state convictions in determining a defendant’s crimina l-history score, the state “is [also] permitted to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.” review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).