Cited by

See, (treating request as postconviction petition because it “questioned the validity of [appellant’s] first- degree murder conviction” and would require “a new trial, not a reduced sentence”); Coles, d at 481 (discussing interrelated nature of convictions and sentences in plea agreements).

n.2 (Minn. 2015); d 776, 779 n.3 (Minn. 2016)

This rule is intended to ensure that defendants cannot use a motion to correct a sentence “to circumvent the procedural requirements of the postconviction statute.”

at 242-43 (-92 n.2 (Minn. 2015); n.3 (Minn. 2016)).

Bolstad, d at 242 (quotation omitted); n.2 (Minn. 2015); n.3 (Minn. 2016) (Johnson II).

n.9 (Minn. 2021) (stating that to the extent defendant challenged his sentence for murder during kidnapping because “there was no kidnapping,” the challenge is “beyond the scope of a rule 27.03 motion”); (stating that rule 27.03 is inapplicable where alleged error in instructing jury on a lesser-included offense implicated more than defendant’s sentence).

A petitioner may not use rule 27.03 “ to circumvent the procedural requirements of the postconviction statute.”

But in Wayne v. State, we declined “to adopt a definitive standard of review because, regardless of the amount of deference, if any,” the district court was entitled to, we decided “that the court did not err when it treated Wayne’s motion as a petition for postconviction relief.” n.2 (Minn. 2015) ; n.3 (Minn. 2016) (declining to adopt a standard of review because we would have affirmed “regardless of the standard of review that applies”).

“A person who brings what is, in substance, a challenge to a criminal conviction cannot use [r]ule 27.03, subdivision 9, to circumvent the procedural requirements of the postconviction statute.”

Johnson v. State , , 778 (Minn. 2016) (quoting Wayne v. State , , 391 (Minn. 2015) ).

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

Coles , d at 482 ; see also Wayne v. State , , 391-92 (Minn. 2015) (noting that an appellant cannot bring what is, in substance, a challenge to a conviction and use Rule 27.03, subdivision 9 to circumvent the procedural requirements of the postconviction statute).

Wayne v. State ( Wayne VIII ), , 391 (Minn. 2015).

See Wayne v. State , , 391 (Minn. 2015) (noting that petitioner's Rule 27.03, subdivision 9 motion attacked the underlying conviction and was therefore, in substance, a petition for postconviction relief).

(noting that petitioner’s Rule 27.03, subd ivision 9 motion attacked the underlying conviction and was therefore, in substance, a petition for postconviction relief).

Johnson, d at 778 () (explaining that such a motion is, “in substance, a challenge to a criminal conviction” so the offender may not use rule 27.03, subdivi sion 9, “to circumvent the procedural 5 requirements of the postconviction statute”).

On the other hand, a motion to correct a sentence should not be construed as a petition for postconviction relief “when the motion does not impact the underlying conviction.” d 357, 360 (Minn. 2016) (holding motion to correct sentence is proper method to challenge court’s legal authority to award restitution); (holding challenge to criminal conviction cannot be made via rule 27.03 “to circumvent the procedural requirements of the postconviction statute”).

n.2 (Minn. 2015) (“We decline the State’s invitation to adopt a definitive standard of review because, regardless of the amount of deference, .

In other words, a Rule 27.03, subdivision 9 motion “ ‘is limited to sentences, and the court’s authority under the rule is restricted to modifying a sentence.’ ” (quoting Coles, d at 480).

We have determined that those “who bring[] what is, in substance, a challenge to a criminal conviction cannot use Rule 27.03, subdivision 9, to circumvent the procedural requirements of the postconviction statute.”

Act of June 2, 2005, ch. 136, art. 14, § 13, 2005 Minn. Laws 901, 1097-98

–81 (Minn. 2015); –92 (Minn. 2015) (applying Coles and deeming the claim outside the rule because a victory would have entitled the claimant to “a new trial, not a reduced sentence”).