Cited by

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

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).

9, which states that a court “may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law.” Although a defendant may request correction of an unauthorized sentence under rule 27.03, subdivision 9, a defendant may not use that rule to challenge his criminal conviction and 5 thereby “circumvent the procedural requirements of the postconviction statute.”

ctment, failing to do so for the charge of first-degree murder does not cause 4 Johnson, d at 916–18 (rejecting a claim that Johnson’s sentence was illegal for violating separation of powers principles); –77 (Minn. 2011) (affirming a denial of a motion to correct sentence that challenged the validity of Johnson’s guilty plea); Johnson v. State , –80 (Minn. 2016) (denying a claim that Johnson’s sentence was a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).

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”).

See, e.g., Johnson v. State , (discussing propriety of a district court treating a motion for corrected sentence as a postconviction petition when the movant raises more issues than just the unauthorized sentence).

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

see Johnson v. State , (noting that where appellant’s requested relief would alter a bargained-for sentence, a district court on remand 8 may allow the state to withdraw from the agreement and move for ward to trial on the original charges).

11, 2009); (noting that if an appellate court permits a reduction in a bargained-for sentence, the district court on remand may allow the state to withdraw from the agreement and move forward to trial on the original charges).

9 does not apply.” (quotations omitted).

does not err in construing a Rule 27.03, subdivision 9 motion as a petition for postconviction relief where the appellant’s challenge ‘implicates more than simply his sentence.’ ” ().