State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1790

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Jawaun Tyreell Taylor,
Appellant.

Filed August 28, 2017
Reversed and remanded
Bjorkman, Judge

Blue Earth County District Court
File No. 07-CR-16-93

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Patrick R. McD ermott, Blue Earth County Attorney, Susan B. DeVos, Assistant County
Attorney, Mankato, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, John Donovan, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and Randall,
Judge.

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant challenges his sentence of first-degree aggravated robbery, arguing that
the criminal-history score on which the sentence was based improperly included an out-of-
state juvenile conviction. Because Taylor’s sentence was based on an incorrect criminal-
history score, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
FACTS
On June 9, 2016, appellant Jawaun Tyreell Taylor pleaded guilty to first -degree
aggravated robbery in connection with an incident that occurred on January 7, 2016.
Taylor’s sentencing worksheet indicated a criminal -history score of 3, which included .5
points for a felony possession-of-stolen-property offense Taylor committed in Illinois
when he was a juvenile. Respondent State of Minnesota did not present evidence regarding
the nature of the Illinois offense or whether Taylor would have been certified as an adult if
he had committed the offense in Minnesota. The district court imposed a 67-month,
bottom-of-the-box, prison sentence based on a criminal-history score of 3. Taylor appeals.1
D E C I S I O N
We review a district court’s determination of a defendant’ s criminal-history score
for abuse of discretion. State v. Stillday, 646 N.W.2d 557, 561 (Minn. App. 2002), review

1 Taylor did not challenge his criminal -history score in the district court. But a sentence
based on an incorrect criminal -history score is an illegal sentence that a defendant may
challenge at any time. State v. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d 141, 147 (Minn. 2007).

3
denied (Minn. Aug. 20, 2002). But interpretation of the sentencing guidelines presents a
legal issue that we review de novo. State v. Campbell, 814 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. 2012).
In calculating a defendant’s criminal-history score, a district court assigns points for
every felony conviction for which a felony sentence was stayed or imposed before the
current sentencing, according to the current severity -level ranking of the prior offense.
Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.B.1 ( Supp. 2015). Ju venile offenses committed in other
jurisdictions “can be included in the adult history section only if the factfinder determines
that it is an offense for which the offender would have been certified to adult court if it had
occurred in Minnesota.” Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.B.5.e ( Supp. 2015). The state has the
burden of proving that the defendant would have been prosecuted as an adult if he
committed a similar offense in Minnesota. State v. Marquetti, 322 N.W.2d 316, 319 (Minn.
1982); State v. Thomas, 374 N.W.2d 586, 588 (Minn. App. 1985).
The state concedes that Taylor’s 2009 Illinois offense was improperly treated as an
adult felony conviction because Taylor would not have been certified as an adult had he
committed the offense in Minnesota. But the s tate argues that Taylor’s criminal -history
score was nonetheless correct because Taylor also has a 2006 Minnesota juvenile offense,
which, when combined with the 2009 offense, supports assignment of one criminal-history
point. Th e state’s argument fails for two reasons. First, the Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines provide that one point is assigned for every two juven ile adjudications only if
the adjudications result from “offenses committed after the offender’s fourteenth birthday.”
Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.B.4.a.(2) (Supp. 2015). Taylor was only 13 years old when he
committed the 2006 offense . Second, the state did not meet its burden of proving by a

4
preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to otherwise determine how Taylor’s
Illinois juvenile adjudication would be classified under Minnesota law. State v. Outlaw,
748 N.W.2d 349, 355 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008) . In sum,
the district court abused its discretion in assigning Taylor .5 points based on his 2009
Illinois juvenile offense.
Because we conclude that Taylor’s sentence was based on an incorrect criminal-
history score, we must decide a remedy. Taylor urges us to either reduce his sentence to
58 months’ imprisonment or remand the issue to the district court f or resentencing. We
reverse and remand for the district court to resentence Taylor based on a criminal-history
score of 2 . See Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d at 151 (remanding to the district court for
resentencing with the correct criminal -history score when the district court erred in its
calculation).
Reversed and remanded.