Cited by

But it is “limited to sentences”: a proper rule 27.03 motion must allege that a sentence is “contrary to law or applicable statutes.”

Instead, we “look to the pleadings and the relief sought in order to determine the nature of a claim.”

By contrast, a motion to correct a sentence grants the 6 district court limited authority to modify only a sentence, but is not subject to a time bar, Minn. R. Crim.

By its terms, rule 27.03, subdivision 9, “is limited to sentences, and the [district] court’s authority under the rule is restricted to modifying a sentence.”

If a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement is modified, “the terms of the plea agreement the parties reached will, in effect, have been rejected.” (quotation omitted).

When “the sentence at issue is imposed as part of a plea agreement, a motion to change that sentence impacts more than simply the sentence, and [r]ule 27.03 does not apply.”

To determine whether a filing is a motion to correct a sentence or a postconviction petition, the district court must “look to the pleadings and the relief sought in order to determine the nature of [the] claim.”

(construing a Rule 27.03 motion to correct a sentence as a petition for postconviction relief where the defendant’s “challenge to his sentence implicate[d] more than simply his sentence”).

But “a challenge to a sentence imposed as part of a plea agreement involves more than simply the sentence.”

But the state urges a different approach, arguing that Grasty must pursue postconviction relief because his sentence is part of a

Accordingly, sentence correction under rule 27.03 is available if, for example, a sentence is premised on an incorrect criminal-history score, departs from the sentencing guidelines without proper support, Amundson, d at 1 Landwehr’s where the defendant invoked both rule 27.03 and the postconviction statute.

But “a challenge to a sentence imposed as part of a plea agreement involves more than simply the sentence.”

11, 2022) (order); -82 (Minn. 2015) (holding that a petition for postconviction relief was appellant’s exclusive remedy because his motion to correct his sentence implicated a plea agreement).

In State v. Coles, the supreme court held that “where the sentence at issue is imposed as part of a plea agreement,” and the appellant ’s requested relief would alter the benefit of the bargain struck, then rule 27.03, subdivision 9, “does not apply.”

(stating that “the plain language of Rule 27.03 is limited to sentences”).

Id.; (stating that “the plain language of Rule 27.03 is limited to sentences, and the court’s authority under the rule is restricted to modifying a sentence”) ; -33 (Minn. 2016) (noting “Rule 27.03, subdivision 9, does not create a new cause of action or deny a def

d 477, 479 (Minn. 2015), we applied the de novo standard of review when considering the issue because the arguments of the parties required that we interpret the text of a statute and a procedural rule.

d 477, 481 (Minn. 2015).

d 477, 480 (Minn. 2015).

See State v. Coles , (“Because Coles’ challenge to his sentence implicates more than simply his sentence, we conclude that it is properly viewed as a petition for postconviction relief under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, not as a motion to correct 6 it must be contrary to law or applicable statutes.” State v. Schnagl, 8

But an offender may not invoke rule 27.03, subdivision 9, to seek relief for anything ot her than an unauthorized sentence because the rule “is limited to sentences, and the court’s authority under the rule is restricted to modifying a sentence.” State v. Coles

First, relying on State v. Coles , -82 (Minn. 2015), the state argues that Hill must challenge his sentence through postconviction proceedings because it was imposed as part of a plea agreement.

A determination of whether the postconviction court properly treated appellant’s motion as a petition for postconvi ction relief presents “issues regarding the interpretation of a procedural rule and statute, questions subject to de novo review.”

State v. Coles , , 480 (Minn. 2015).

See Wayne v. State , , 391 (Minn. 2015) ; State v. Coles , , 480 (Minn. 2015).

State v. Coles , , 480 (Minn. 2015).

See State v. Coles , (holding that, when a defendant’s “motion to correct his senten c e i m p l i c a t e s h i s p l e a agreement, [the defendant’s] exclusive remedy is a petition for postconviction relief”).

The supreme court in Johnson applied the same reasoning it used in State v. Coles , where the requested relief was a reduced sentence despite a negotiated plea agreement.

“The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law subject to de novo review.” (holding same).

State v. Coles , -81 (Minn. 2015).