Cited by

An unlawful sentence “must have been illegal at the time it was imposed.”

The district court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to hear appellant’s motion to correct a sentence under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, which only challenged the lawfulness of his mandatory life sentences, such a motion is not subject to the limitations period imposed by Minnesota Statutes § 590.01, subdivision 4, and even if it were, the limitations period imposed by Minnesota Statutes § 590.01, subdivision 4 is not jurisdictional.

W.2d 824, 826 (Minn. 2005); (statute barring seat belt evidence in “any litigation involving personal injuries or property damage” barred evidence in an action 9 alleging that the seat belt was defective (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); –34 (Minn. 2016) (the two-year statute of limitations for a petition for postconviction relief does not apply to a motion under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, which authorizes a court to correct an illegal senten

sonable.” Hyatt v. Anoka Police Dep’t, (statute barring seat belt evidence in “any litigation involving personal injuries or property damage” barred evidence in an action 10 alleging that the seat belt was defective (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); –34 (Minn. 2016) (the two-year statute of limitations for a petition for postconviction relief does not apply to a motion under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, which authorizes a court to correct an il

A sentence is unauthorized if it is “contrary to law or applicable statutes.” (quotation omitted).

“The interpretation of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure is a question [appellate courts] review de novo.”

An unlawful sentence is one that is “contrary to law or applicable statutes.” (quotation omitted).

Yet “[t]he imposition of a [ten- year] conditional-release term without a jury’s finding or a defendant’s admission that he was a risk-level-III offender at the time of the offense is a sentence that is not authorized by law.”

to impose a 10-year term of conditional release on a defendant convicted of failing to register as a predatory offender without the required jury finding or admission by the defendant that the defendant is a risk-level-III offender.” ().

Under Blakely, “[a] court exceeds its authority when it imposes a sentence that the jury’s verdict alone does not allow.” (quotations omitted); see Blakely, 542 U.S. at 304.

2 61 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotation omitted) (holding that a motion was proper under rule 27.03 7 when it challenged a sentence on constitutional grounds), aff’d, (holding the same for a motion challenging a sentence based on an incorrect criminal- history score); (holding the same for a motion challenging an upward departure based solely on a

d 125, 130 (Minn. 2016).

(stating that “for a sentence to be eligible for correction under Rule 27.03, subdivision 9, the sentence must have been illegal at the time it was imposed”).

9; (holding that applying the 2-year time bar in the postconviction statute to motions to correct sentence violates the separation of powers and affirming that motions to correct sentence have no time limit).

(stating that we review interpretations of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure de novo).

“The interpretation of the Minnesota Rules o f Criminal Procedure is a question we review de novo.” Reynolds v. State

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 defendant a defense on the merits,” the 5 rule is merely procedural and is meant to “facilitate[] the performance of a judicial function: sentencing”).

State v. Lee , Furthermore, “[t] he interpretation of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure is a question we review de novo.” Reynolds v. State

“The interpretation of the Minnesota Rul es of Criminal Procedure is a question [appellate courts] review de novo.” (footnote omitted) .

See Reynolds v. State , (concluding tha t unauthorized conditional-release term was properly challenged under rule 27.03, subdivision 9).

-34 (Minn. 2016) (holding that the two-year time limit does not apply); -52 (Minn. App. 2013) (holding that a motion to correct a sentence is not barred by the statutory prohibition on second or successive postconviction petitions).

see also State v. Her , , 696 (Minn. 2015).

State v. Reynolds , See also Washington, d at 212.

Reynolds v. State , , 129 (Minn. 2016).

Reynolds v. State , 33 (Minn. 2016).

In 2016, while Franson was serving the conditional-release term of his sentence, he moved to correct his sentence, asking the district court to vacate the conditional-release term based on two recent supreme court decisions, Reynolds v. State , and State v. Her

And, to the extent that Munt's claims involve the interpretation of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure or Minnesota Statutes, our review is de novo, Reynolds v. State , , 129-30 (Minn. 2016).

Reynolds v. State , , 129 (Minn. 2016).