Cited by

-06 (Minn. 2019); n.5 (Minn. 2018); -48 (Minn. 2007).

Minnesota offense definitions and sentencing policies in effect when the defendant committed the current crime.” State v. Scovel , (Scovel rule).

(“[I]t is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a 12 The supreme court expressly rejected interpreting the phrase “natural causes” to mean “only deaths caused solely by an external force” in Johnson.

We review sentencing challenges for an abuse of discretion, and we interpret the sentencing guidelines de novo

(stating that we may “set aside dictionary definitions when context makes clear that dictionary definitions may not fit”).

S (whether sentence conforms to sentencing guidelines); State v. Scovel , (interpretation of sentencing guidelines).

Grp., LLC, (interpreting statutory phrase “without notice” consistent with prior caselaw regarding same statute); - 93 (Minn. 1974) (analyzing prior interpretations of same statutory 15 But, as the supreme court has noted, “the dictionary is not foolproof or failsafe.”

(citing State v. Scovel , ).

2.B.101 (2020).5 But if an offender has “multiple offenses occurring in a 5 The comments to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines are advisory—not binding—but appellate courts “strive for an interpretation that is consistent with the comments.”

Notch, d at 386; – 55 (Minn. 2018) (“If the Guidelines language is plain and unambiguous, it is presumed to manifest the intent of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission .

But we must also “set aside dictionary definitions when context makes clear that dictionary definitions may not fit.” (emphasis added); see also City of Brainerd v. Brainerd Invs.

d 303, 305-06 (Minn. 2019); n.5 (Minn. 2018); State 9 v. Maurstad

(noting that dictionary definitions are “not foolproof or failsafe”); (concluding that multiple and conflicting dictionary definitions were “nondefinitive”).

But 7 interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is a question of law we review de novo, applying “the same principles as when interpreting statutes.”

But “the dictionary is not foolproof or failsafe” and “[i]t is not unusual to set aside dictionary definitions when context makes clear that dictionary definitions may not fit.” d 550, 555 (Minn. 2018); see Chiodo v. Bd.

558 (Minn. 2018); see also Strobel, d at 309–10.

2.B.503 (2020); d 550, 555 (Minn. 2018) (stating that the comments are merely advisory, not binding).

When we interpret the [g]uidelines, we use the same principles as when interpreting statutes, including the canons of [statutory] interpretation in Minn. Stat. § 645.08.” (citation omitted).

ement-based d efinitions of crimes .” d at 309 -10.5 Because the DSRA amended fifth-degree drug possession to revise the weight thresholds for a violation to be classified as a felony or gross misdemeanor ,6 the supreme court held that severity of Strobel’s 2012 conviction should be determined by comparing the facts of his prior offense 5 While Jacobson also cites State v. Scovel , , for this proposition, we do not find Scovel helpful.

When interpreting the sentencing guidelines, we use “the same principles as when interpreting statutes.” State v. Scovel

But “[i]nterpreting the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines presents a question of law, which we review de novo.” State v. Scovel , .

on seeks review via a direct appeal pursuant to rule 28.02, subdivision 2(3), which allows defendants to “appeal as of right from any sentence imposed or stayed in a felony case.” Defend ants may use this method to challenge their sentence even when other avenues of appeal may be available, because “a defendant cannot forfeit appellate review of his criminal history score.” n.5 (Minn. 2018) (); n.1 (Minn. App. 2018) (“[A] sentence based on an incorrect criminal-history sc ore is an illegal sente

We also read the statute as a whole, see State v. Scovel , (discussing the whole-statute canon), and favor an interpretation tha t gives “each word or phrase in a statute a distinct, not an identical, meaning.” d 432, 437 (Minn. 2017) (discussing the canon against surplusage).

(holding that sentencing policies in effect at the time the 10 “current offense” was committed control in determining prior -offense criminal -history points).

“A defendant cannot forfeit appellate review of his criminal history score.” n.5 (Minn. 2018).