Cited by

when resentenced with a correct criminal history score.”

“We review a district court’s decision to deny a motion under rule 27.03 for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Provost

This is true even if the sentence falls within the 11 presumptive sentencing range for the correct criminal-history score “because the sentencing guidelines serve as the anchor for a district court’s discretion at sentencing, [so] when a guidelines range moves up or down, offenders’ sentences tend to move with it.” -02 (Minn. App. 2017) (quotation omitted).

Thus, “any sentence based on an incorrect criminal history score is an illegal sentence.” (quotation omitted).

Thus, “any sentence based on an incorrect criminal history score is an illegal sentence.” (quotation omitted).

“[N]ot every defendant who receives a sentence at the top or bottom end of the presumptive range when sentenced with an incorrect criminal history score need necessarily receive a similarly situated sentence within the presumptive range when resentenced with a correct criminal history score.”

State v. Provost , citing Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 9 1338, 1343-44 (2016) (directing remand to the district co urt when defendant’s criminal - history score was incorrect but nevertheless resulted in a sentence within the presumptive range).

“[W]hen a defendant is sentenced based on an incorrect criminal history score, a district court must resentence the defendant.” State v. Provost

State v. Provost , -02 (Minn. App. 2017) (concluding that “Provost’s 48-month sentence, which was within the presumptive guidelines range of 41 to 57 months when calculated with Provost’ s incorrect criminal history score, was also within the presumptive guidelines range of 37 to 51 months when calculated with his corrected cr

He then cites to Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018); Molina-Martinez v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) ; and State v. Provost

2008) (concluding that if the state’s evidence is insufficient to carry its burden of proof as to the defendant’s criminal-history score, the proper remedy was to remand the matter for an opportunity for the state “to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can appropriately make its determination.”), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2008); see also State v. Provost , (holding that when a defendant’s sentence is based on an inco rrect criminal-history score, the district co

State v. Provost , (M inn.

See State v. Provost , (holding that a sentence is an unauthorized sentence if based on an incorrect criminal-history score even if the correct score does not change the presumptive sentence range).

Appellant is correct that “the sentencing guidelines serve as the anchor for a district court’s discretion at sentencing,” and “when a [g]uidelines range moves up or down, offenders’ sentences tend to move with it.” State v. Provost , (quotation omitted).

5 Appellant also argues that the vacating of his firearm offense entitled him to reconsideration of his sentence, (concerning a CHS reduced by the vacation of a conviction under Haywood and holding that “when a defendant is sentenced based on an incorrect criminal history score, a district court must resentence the defendant”) .

This court reviews “a district court’s decision to deny a motion under rule 27.03 for an abuse of discretion.”

State v. Provost , , 202 (Minn. App. 2017).

But “a district court ‘must use accurate criminal history scores.’” 14 ().