Robert Lee Crum, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0872

Robert Lee Crum, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed January 7, 2019
Affirmed
Stauber, Judge*

Olmsted County District Court
File No. 55-CR-14-3840

Robert Lee Crum, Faribault, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

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

Mark A. Ostrem, Olmsted County Attorney, Jennifer D. Plante, Assistant County Attorney,
Rochester, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and
Stauber, 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
STAUBER, Judge
On appeal from the denial of a motion to correct his sentence, appellant argues that
the district court erred in calculating his criminal history score based on two prior decayed
convictions. Because the convictions were not decayed, we affirm.
FACTS
Beginning in May 2014, appellant Robert Crum sold cocain e to a confidential
informant. After the fourth sale, police executed a search warrant on Crum’s home and
discovered 5.6 grams of cocaine. The state charged Crum with first-degree sale in violation
of Minn. Stat. § 152.021, subd. 1(1) (2012), third -degree sale in violation of Minn. Stat .
§ 152.023, subd. 1(1) (2012), and four counts of second -degree controlled substance in
violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.022, subd. 1(1) (2012). A jury subsequently found Crum
guilty of all counts.
Before sentencing, Crum filed a motion contesting the accuracy of his crimin al-
history score. His score was 10 points, which included: four felony convictions from
Illinois, each assigned 1.5 points; two felony convictions from Minnesota, each assigned
1.5 points; and 1 custody status point. He argued that his 10 -point criminal-history score
was inaccurate because the prior convictions used in the calculation were decayed . The
district court found that the state proved by a preponderance of the evidence that “the felony
weight that was assigned to these offenses was appropriate and also accurate.”
Additionally, the court found that the expiration date of the Illinois convictions was
December 17, 2001, and they had not decayed.

3
Crum challenged his sentence under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, arguing that the
district court miscalculated his criminal -history score. This appeal followed after the
district court denied his motion.
D E C I S I O N
“The court may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law.” Minn. R.
Crim. P. 27.03. A sentence that is “based on an incorrect criminal history score is an illegal
sentence.” State v. Outlaw, 748 N.W.2d 349, 356 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn.
July 15, 2008). This court reviews “a district court’s decision to deny a motion under rule
27.03 for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Prov ost, 901 N.W.2d 199, 201 (Minn. App.
2017).
Crum challenges his criminal-history score, which falls squarely under the potential
relief afforded by Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03. However, Crum ’s additional arguments,
including claims of a defective complaint, prosecutorial misconduct, Fourth Amendment
violations, and ineffective assistance, fall outside the scope of challenging his sentence and
instead challenge his conviction. These arguments are thus treated as if filed in a
postconviction petition. Washington v. State , 845 N.W.2d 205, 215 (Minn. App. 2014).
Crum was aware of but did not assert these arguments in his previous direct appeals, but
his claims of a defective complaint, prosecutorial misconduct, Fourth Amendment
violations, and ineffective assistance are procedurally barred because he could have raised
them. See State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (Minn. 1976) (noting that “where direct
appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised,

4
will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief”). We do not
consider these barred claims.
Criminal-History Score
This court may reverse a district court’s determination of a defendant’s criminal -
history score only if it has abused its dis cretion. State v. Maley , 714 N.W.2d 708, 711
(Minn. 2006). The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines provide that prior felony convictions
are included in a defendant’s criminal -history score. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.B.1.a
(2016). However, points may not be assigned for prior felony convictions that have
decayed. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.B.1.c (2016). “A prior felony conviction has
decayed if, when computing the criminal history score . . . a period of fifteen years has
elapsed since the date of discharg e from or expiration of the sentence to the date of the
current offense.” State v. Washington, 894 N.W.2d 168, 172 (Minn. App. 2017).
Crum argues that the district court should not have considered his out -of-state
convictions when it calculated his crimi nal-history score. He states that his 1995 Illinois
convictions are decayed because more than fifteen years passed before his 2014 offense.
However, as the sentencing guidelines prescribe, it is not the year of the conviction that
matters but instead the d ate of discharge or expiration of the sentence. Minn. Sent.
Guidelines 2.B.1.c. The expiration date of Crum’s prior Illinois convictions was December
17, 2001. Thus, his current 2014 offense fell within fifteen years of 2001, and his prior
convictions may be considered when computing his criminal -history score. Further, even
if Crum urged this court to consider his parole date in 2000, the fifteen -year time bar still

5
does not apply. Crum’s Illinois convictions were not decayed and the record supports the
finding that his criminal-history score was 10 points.
Affirmed.