Cited by

State v. Edwards , aff’d mem.

We 8 “review determinations of a defendant’s criminal history score for an abuse of discretion.” aff’d

“We review determinations of a defendant’s criminal-history score for abuse of discretion.” aff’d, d 594 (Minn. 2018).

State v. Edwards , aff’d mem.

“We review determinations of a defendant’s criminal history score for abuse of discretion.” aff’d mem.

“We review determinations of a defendant’s criminal[-]history score for [an] abuse of discretion.” aff’d mem.

18 (concluding that the inc lusion of “attempting to inflict bodily harm” in the jury instructions for second -degree assault with a dangerous weapon charge was not reversible error where the defense conceded that the defendant got into a fist fight and the only dispute was whether the defendant used a knife —the alleged dangerous weapon), aff’d mem.

aff’d, d 594 (Minn. 2018).

State v. Strobel , aff’d

(holding that district court’s calculation of a defendant’s criminal -history score did not violate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial), aff’d mem., Wright provides no analysis or explanation to justify making a new exception to this exception.

State v. Stillday , 13 review denied (Minn. Aug.

“We review deter minations of a defendant’s criminal history score for abuse of discretion.” State v. Edwards , aff’d mem.

When determining whether a prior out-of-state offense would have been certified to adult court in Minnesota, “the d istrict court may look to the d efinition of the offense, the nature of the offense, and the sentence received.” 14 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotation omitted), aff’d mem.