State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A22-0893

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Darren Ray Liimatainen,
Appellant.

Filed December 27, 2022
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Carlton County District Court
File No. 09-CR-19-1106

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Lauri A. Ketola, Carlton County Attorney, Jeffrey LH Boucher, Chief Deputy County
Attorney, Carlton, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M. , Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and
Wheelock, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WORKE, Judge
Following remand for resentencing, appellant argues that the district court abused
its discretion by imposing the original sentence based on its determination that appellant’s
criminal-history score included a prior felony conviction. We affirm.
2
FACTS
In 2013, appellant Darren Ray Liimatainen pleaded guilty to felony fifth-degree
controlled-substance possession.
In 2019, Liimatainen pleaded guilty to third- and fifth-degree possession of
methamphetamine. Liimatainen’s criminal- history score was six and included one-half
point for the 2013 drug conviction. The district court sentenced Liimatainen to 21 months
for the fifth-degree offense and 57 months 1 for the third-degree offense, stayed the
sentences, and placed him on probation.
When Liimatainen violated his probation, the district court executed his sentences.
Liimatainen appealed the revocation of probation and the inclusion of the one-half point
for the 2013 conviction in his criminal-history score. This court affirmed the revocation
of probation but concluded that the record failed to establish that the 2013 conviction would
be a felony after enactment of the 2016 Drug Sentencing Reform Act (DSRA). See State
v. Liimatainen, No. A21-0536, 2021 WL 5764585, at *5 (Minn. App. Dec. 6, 2021), rev.
denied (Minn. Feb. 23, 2022). This court reversed Liimatainen’s sentence and directed
that on remand the state could develop the record to establish that the 2013 conviction is a
felony. Id.
On remand, the dispute related to the quantity of the controlled substance, Lortab,
that Liimatainen admitted to possessing when he pleaded guilty in 2013. Liimatainen
argued that he admitted to possessing one unit of Lortab, which is a gross misdemeanor.

1 With a criminal-history score of five , the presumptive sentence would have been 51
months in prison.
3
The state argued that Liimatainen admitted that he “had Lortab” not just “a Lortab” and
supplemental information—the criminal complaint indicating that officers found “four (4)
pills,” a photograph of items seized from Liimatainen’s person showing four Lortab pills,
and the evidence log documenting the four Lortab pills—showed that Liimatainen admitted
to possessing four Lortab pills. The district court concluded that Liimatainen pleaded
guilty to possessing “Lortab,” which was plural. It determined that the 2013 conviction
was a felony and imposed a 57-month sentence. This appeal followed.
DECISION
Liimatainen argues that the district court abused its discretion by determining that
the 2013 conviction is a felony in calculating his criminal-history score. This court reviews
the district court’s determination of a criminal-history score for an abuse of discretion .
State v. Edwards, 900 N.W.2d 722, 727 (Minn. App. 2017), aff’d mem., 909 N.W.2d 594
(Minn. 2018).
When Liimatainen pleaded guilty in 2013, the fifth-degree conviction was a felony.
In 2016, the DSRA provided that first time drug offenses are gross misdemeanors when
the amount possessed is “one dosage unit or less if the controlled substance was possessed
in dosage units.” Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 4(a)(1) (2018). Thus, the district court had
to determine whether the 2013 drug conviction would currently be a gross misdemeanor or
a felony. See State v. Strobel, 932 N.W.2d 303, 307-10 (Minn. 2019) (stating that when
calculating a criminal-history score, a pre-2016 fifth-degree possession offense is counted
as a felony if it would be a felony under current law).
4
At the 2013 guilty-plea hearing, the following occurred:

The Court: Okay. And they thought that you might be
under the influence of something, but they did
find that you had Lortab with you; is that
correct?
[Liimatainen]: In the jacket I was wearing there was, yeah,
but no, I wasn’t under the influence of
anything.
The Court: All right. But you had no legal prescription
for Lortab.
[Liimatainen]: No, I did not.
The Court: And you understand you can’t possess that,
that’s a scheduled or legend drug; you can’t,
without a doctor’s prescription.
[Liimatainen]: I do now, yes.

This exchange shows that Liimatainen admitted to possessing the Lortab that was
found in his jacket, which was four Lortab pills. The district court did not ask “[Officers]
did find that you had Lortabs with you” because Lortab is a brand name like Tylenol that
does not require the addition of an “s” to make plural. The district court asked Liimatainen
if he had a “legal prescription for Lortab.” Generally, a prescription is for more than one
pill. A quantity will appear on the prescription, but the prescription for “Lortab” will
include all of the pills in the bottle.
Liimatainen argues that the district court improperly relied on State v. Colclasure,
in which the defendant was found with a bottle of prescription pills that he identified as
Lortab. No. A11-55, 2011 WL 5119124, at *1 (Minn. App. Oct. 31, 2011).
2 Liimatainen
argues that Colclasure had nothing to do with whether “Lortab” is singular or plural. But

2 We are not bound by our nonprecedential opinions, but we may cite them as “persuasive
authority.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
5
the district court did not rely on Colclasure; it merely cited an example of the use of the
word “Lortab” as plural.
Further, on remand, in developing the record to establish that the 2013 conviction
is a felony, the state provided the criminal complaint, the photograph, and the inventory
log. Liimatainen does not dispute that the complaint indicated that he possessed four
“Lortabs,” and the photo shows four of one type of pill. Instead, he claims that these
exhibits may show that he was found with four Lortab pills, but they do not establish that
he admitted to possessing multiple Lortab pills.
The complaint and photographs provided context and clarity to statements made
during the plea hearing. Liimatainen admitted that officers found that he “had Lortab with
[him]” “[i]n the jacket [he] was wearing.” He did not state that he was pleading guilty to
possessing only one of the four Lortab pills found in his jacket. He admitted that he
possessed the Lortab found in his jacket, which was four Lortab pills. The district court
did not abuse its discretion in determining that the 2013 conviction is a felony under current
law and appropriately included in Liimatainen’s criminal-history score.
Affirmed.