Cited by

In April 2018, appellant moved to correct his sentence from 94 months to 73 months under the new sentencing grid created by the DSRA and in light of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s

State v. Kirby , , 493 (Minn. 2017).

In State v. Kirby , the supreme court 20 held that section 18 of the DSRA applies to crimes committed before May 23, 2016 ,10 so long as three requirements are satisfied: (1) there is no statement of legislative intent “to abrogate the amelioration doctrine; (2) the amendment mitigates punishment; and (3) final judgment has not been entered as of the date the amendment takes effect.” d 485, 488-90 (Minn. 2017).

(holding that the doctrine of amelioration applies to a defendant whose conviction was not yet final when the DSRA took effect).

Minn. 3 Appellant contends that the August 1, 2016 Sentencing Guidelines are applicable because the district court sentenced appellant on May 19, 2016, and his case was still pending when the 2016 Guidelines came into effect on May 23, 2016, pursuant to State v. Kirby

Blanchard asked the post-conviction court to modify his sentences pursuant to the Drug Sentencing Reform Act of 2016

Section 18 of “the DSRA reduced the presumptive sentencing ranges for first-degree controlled-substance crimes.”

s held that section 18 also applies retroactively to crimes committed before May 23, 2016, if three requirements are met: “(1) the Legislature made no statement that clearly establishes the Legislature’s intent to abrogate the amelioration doctrine; (2) the a mendment mitigated punishment; and (3) final judgment had not been entered as of the date the amendment took effect.”

After this court filed its opinion

The postconviction court denied Reynolds’s petition , reasoning that, the DSRA does not apply to Reynolds’s sentenc e because judgment in his case became final before May 23, 2016, the date the DSRA became effective.

This “doctrine applies [ statutory amendments] to cases that are not yet final when the change in law takes effect.” d 485, 488 (Minn. 2017).

The constitutional concern flowing from roundly criticized single photograph line-ups is that “police influence rather than the witness’s own reasoning and recollection led to the witness’s identification of the defendant.” Hooks, d at 84 ; see also State v. 3 d 485 (Minn. 2017), the district court granted Peterson’s motion to modify her sentence to 56 months.

State v. Kirby , , 493 (Minn. 2017).

final judgment has not been entered as of the date the amendment takes effect.”

But we reverse and remand for resentencing in accordance with the Drug Sentencing Reform Act (DSRA)

the supreme court held that section 18 of the DSRA applies to cr imes committed before May 23, 2016, the effective date of that section, so long as three requirements are satisfied: 10 (1) there is no statement by the Legislature that clearly establishes the Legislature’s intent to abrogate the am

d 485, 496 (Minn. 2017).

2 Appellant also argues that he is entitled to be resentenced under State v. Kirby , (holding that, when the DSRA reduced a defendant’s presumptive sentencing range from 138 -192 months to 110 -153 months, it “plainly mitigate[d the defendant’s] punishment”).

to ensure that the Guidelines abide by the federal and state Ex Post Facto Clauses.” State v. Kirby , (quotation omitted).

(“The amelioration doctrine requires the resentencing of a pe rson whose conviction was not yet final on the 14 effective date of section 18(b) of the Drug Sentencing Reform Act .”).

However, the state agrees that appellant is entitled to be resentenced under the 2016

2016 Minn. Laws ch. 160, § 18(b)(4)-(5), at 591

the supreme court held that section 18 of the DSRA does apply to crimes committed before May 23, 2016, the effective date -of that section, so long as three requirements are satisfied: (1) there is no statement by the Legislature that clearly establishes the Legislature’s intent to abrogate the ameliorat

and State v. Kirby , , and their analysis does not support Schirmer’s assertion.

pellant’s sentence Under the DSRA amendments to the sentencing grid, a defendant is required to be resentenced “only if: (1) the Legislature made no statement that clearly establishes the Legislature’s intent to abrogate the amelioration doctrine; (2) the amendment mitigated punishment; and (3) final judgment had not been entered as of the date the amendment took effect.” State v. Kirby

I would affi rm the conviction, but I would reverse and remand the district court’s

also filed today, the issues before us are controlled by the amelioration doctrine.