Cited by

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.B.1.e (2020).

Rather, the Hernandez method applies whenever “a defendant is sentenced for multiple offenses on the same day.”

–24 (Minn. 5 2009) (concluding sentenci ng guidelines do not prohibit application of Hernandez to multiple convictions and sentences under fe lon-in-possession ex ception to section 609.035).

“A defendant ’s criminal-history score is calculated, in part, by allotting points for each of a defendant ’s prior convictions for which a felony sentence was imposed.” (quotations omitted); see Minn. Sent.

Under this method, if a defendant is sentenced for mu ltiple convictions on the same day, “a conviction for which the defendant is first sentenced is added to his or her criminal-history score for another offense for which he or she is also sentenced.” -22 (Minn. 2009) (citation omitted).

2.B.101 (2014); see also State v. Williams

10 Under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, a court may “correct a sentence not authorized by law” “at any time.” A court’s authority under Rule 27.03, subdivision 9, is restricted to modifying a sentence.

“A defendant’s criminal-history score is cal culated, in part, by allotting points for each of a defendant’s prior convictions for which a felony sentence was imposed.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Campbell , (stating that the sentencing guidelines a pply only to felonies); State v. Williams , (describing the purpose of the sentencing guidelines ).

A. Calculation of French’s criminal-history score “A defendant’s criminal-history score is calculated, in part, by allotting ‘points’ for each of a defendant’ s prior convictions for which a felony sentence was imposed.” .

“A defendant’s criminal-history score is calculated, in part, by allotting points for each of a defendant’s prior convictions for which a felony sentence was imposed.”

“Resolving the issue of whether convictions that are adjudicated simultaneously can result in [both] a prior conviction and a present offense is a matter of statutory interpretation, which is an issue of law that we review de novo.” (applying de novo review to determine whether a sentence conforms to statutes).

2005), or in its brief, n.2 (Minn. 2009).

d 514, 520 (Minn. 2009).

d 514, 520 (Minn. 2009).

d 514, 519 (Minn. 2009) (observing, in discussing this Jones factor, that the appellant “made no offer of proof as to what testimony he would have added to t he testimony” of another witness).

See State v. W illiams, (explaining Hernandez method).

See State v. Williams , 20 (Minn. 2009) (interpreting sentencing guidelines de novo).

2(b) (2016) t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a s e n t e nce is “inconsistent with statutory requirements, unreasonable, inappropriate, excessive, unjustifiably disparate, or not warranted by the findings of fact issued by the district court.” “The interpretation of a 3 statute and the sentencing guidelines are questions of law that we review de novo.”

State v. Williams , , 520 (Minn. 2009).

Therefore, the issue on which the court bases its decision today is not properly before us. See, e.g., State v. Williams , , 517 n.2 (Minn. 2009) (noting that a party forfeits appellate review by failing to brief or argue an issue).

State v. Williams , , 521 (Minn. 2009).

State v. Williams , , 520 (Minn. 2009).

State v. Williams , , 521 (Minn. 2009) (quoting Minn. Sent.