Cited by

(stating that “[petitioner] seeks to invoke an exception to the Knaffla rule, but he may not do so for the first time on appeal because he did not assert the exception in his motion papers in the district court”); (“A postconviction cou

( n.1 (Minn. App. 2014)).

4(a), and a procedural bar on bringing claims that the individual knew or should have known about at the time of an earlier appeal or postconviction petition, d 205, 210 (Minn. App. 2014) (citing Knaffla, d at 741; ).

Washington v. State , d 205, 210 (Minn. App. 2014).

-12 (Minn. App. 2014) (discussing supreme court cases addressing the issue).

“[A]n offender may challenge his sentence either by filing a petition for postconviction relief under chapter 590 of the Minnesota Statutes or by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to rule 27.03, subdivision 9.” d 205, 210 (Minn. App. 2014).

2d at 751 -52; see also Washington v. State , 216 (Minn. App. 2014).

Rule 27.03, subd ivision 9, does not apply to sentence challenges based on claimed factual inaccuracies before the district court at sentencing or when th e district court “ select[ed] 4 one among two or more sentences that are authorized by law.”

(“[R]ule 27.03, subdivision 9, authorizes relief only if a party challenges a sentence, as opposed to a conviction, and only if a party does so b y asserting that a sentence is ‘unauthorized by law’ .

Because Rhodes could have raised the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim in his first postconviction petition but did not, the Knaffla rule bars consideration of the claim in Rhodes’s second postconviction petition.1 Rhodes argues that the Knaffla rule does not apply here because he could have brought his first petition as a motion to correct sentence under Minn. R. Crim.

9, allows a court to “correct a sentence not authorized by law.” (noting that rule 27.03 allows court to sua sponte correct sentence).

(stating that a motion to correct sentence is proper only when the sentence was illegal); (recognizing the district court’s authority to treat a motion to correct sentence as a postconviction petition).

But we also have held that an offender’s challenge to a sentence is “properly filed” under rule 27.03, subdivision 9, only in limited circumstances: “only if the offender challenges the sentence on the ground that it is ‘unauthorized by law’ in the sense that the sentence is contrary to an applicable statute or other applicable law.”

And a motion is properly filed under the rule if the offender challenges a sentence on the grounds that “the sentence is contrary to an applicable statute or other applicable law.” see also Vazquez, d at 318 (holding 5 that a challenge to a sentence based on the district court’s incorrect calculation of the offender’s criminal-history score was properly raised under rule 27.03)