Cited by

7 “Appellate courts ‘review a district court’s denial of a motion to correct a sentence under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, for an abuse of discretion.’” d 626, 631 (Minn. App. 2025) ().

4 We note, as the state does, that nothing in this opinion prevents Madison from making a motion under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03 and challenging the restitution order as “contrary to law or applicable statutes.”

But he asserts that he may raise this challenge for the first time on appeal because , as recognized in Evans v. State, a court “may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law.” -60 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted) .

“[A] restitution award is part of a sentence.”

Because restitution is part of a sentence, a defendant may challenge a restitution order through a motion to correct sentence under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, if the defendant is “challeng[ing] the court’s legal authority to award restitution” and “the motion does not impact the underlying conviction.” -60 (Minn. 2016).

8 Appellate courts “review a district court’s denial of a motion to correct a sentence under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, for an abuse of discretion.”

“We review a district court’s denial of a motion to correct a sentence under [rule 27.03] for an abuse of discretion.” , 359 (Minn. 2016).

5(1) (including “the offender” as a collateral source); (stating that, once the Board has awarded reparations to a victim, “it steps into the shoes of the victim”).

“For a sentence to be unauthorized, it must be contrary to law or applicable statutes.”

“[T]he term ‘reparations,’ as used in Minn. Stat. § 611A.53, is not synonymous with the term ‘restitution.’”

After the 30- day time period has passed, a defendant “may not challenge restitution,” id., unless the challenge relates to “the district court’s legal authority to award restitution,”

Evans v. State , -60 (Minn. 2016).

9, for an abuse of discretion.”

9, for an abuse of discretion.” Evans v. State

Evans v. State , d 357, 359 (Minn. 2016).

5a.” The conditional-release terms were “a material part of the negotiation.” -60 (Minn. 2016) .

“For a sentence to be unauthorized, it must be contrary to law or applicable statutes.”

See Evans v. State ( Evans IV )

" Evans v. State , , 359 (Minn. 2016).