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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-0997

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Vanik Carlence Pierre,
Appellant.

Filed April 28, 2025
Reversed and remanded
Bentley, Judge

Jackson County District Court
File No. 32-CR-23-219

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

Kristi Meyeraan, Jackson County Attorney, Jackson, Minnesota; and

Travis J. Smith, Special Assistant County Attorney, Smith & Johnson, Slayton, Minnesota
(for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Roy G. Spurbeck, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Harris, Presiding Judge; Ede, Judge; and Bentley, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BENTLEY, Judge
In this appeal from a guilty plea and final judgment of conviction for first-degree
burglary, appellant Vanik Carlence Pierre argues that the district court erred by including
two prior non-Minnesota convictions in his criminal- history score at sentencing.
2
Respondent State of Minnesota concedes that the district court erred in this respect and
agrees that the matter should be reversed and remanded for resentencing. After
independently reviewing the record in this case, we agree that the state did not prove that
the prior Florida convictions should be included in Pierre’s criminal-history score and that
the district court erred in considering them. We therefore reverse and remand for
resentencing.
FACTS
The state charged Pierre with one count of first-degree burglary under Minn. Stat.
§ 609.582, subd. 1(a) (2022), two counts of felony domestic assault under Minn. Stat.
§ 609.2242, subd. 4 (2022), and two counts of felony violation of a domestic-abuse no-
contact order under Minn. Stat. § 629.75, subd. 2(d)(1) (2022).
Pierre entered into a plea agreement with the state. Pursuant to the agreement, Pierre
would plead guilty to first-degree burglary and admit to probation violations in two prior
criminal files, and Pierre’s stayed sentences for the two prior criminal files would be
executed. In exchange, the state would dismiss the remaining charges. The parties agreed
that Pierre’s sentence would be no greater than 98 months and that he would be permitted
to argue for a lesser duration. Pierre waived his right to a jury trial and the district court
accepted his guilty plea.
Prior to sentencing, the department of corrections submitted a pre-sentence
investigation (PSI) report to the district court. The PSI report included criminal-history
points for two prior felony convictions in Florida, which added two and one-half points to
Pierre’s criminal-history score. Pierre’s final criminal-history score was five points,
3
leading to a presumptive sentencing range of 84 to 117 months. The PSI report
recommended a sentence in the middle of that range—98 months.
At sentencing, Pierre argued for a sentence of 84 months, whereas the state argued
for 98 months. Neither the parties nor the district court contested the applicability of the
prior Florida convictions. The district court sentenced Pierre to 98 months.
Pierre appeals.
DECISION
Pierre argues on appeal that the district court erred by sentencing him based on an
incorrect criminal-history score. Pierre contends that the state “did not prove that either
offense would be defined as a felony in Minnesota . . . or that [Pierre] had received a
Minnesota felony-level sentence.”
In lieu of a brief, the state filed correspondence “conced[ing] that the district court
erred” by including felony points for the Florida convictions because “the record is
insufficient to allow the district court to determine that the Florida offenses would be
defined as felonies in Minnesota or that the sentences [Pierre] received in Florida for those
offenses would be felony level sentences under Minnesota [law].” The parties agree that
the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing with the opport unity for the state to
develop the record. We agree with the parties.
“We review determinations of a defendant’s criminal history score for 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). “A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based
on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” State v.
4
Hallmark, 927 N.W.2d 281, 291 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted). Whether the district
court based its decision on an erroneous view of the law, including its interpretation of the
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, is a question of law that we review de novo. See State
v. Scovel, 916 N.W.2d 550, 554 (Minn. 2018). Moreover, “a sentence based on an incorrect
criminal history score is an illegal sentence ,” and review of a criminal-history score
calculation cannot be waived. State v. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d 141, 147 (Minn. 2007).
Therefore, even if the defendant did not object to the error, “[w]hen a defendant’s sentence
is based on an incorrect criminal-history score, [the] case must be remanded for
resentencing.” State v. Woods, 945 N.W.2d 414, 416-17 (Minn. App. 2020).
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines “provide uniform standards for the inclusion
and weighting of criminal history information that are intended to increase the fairness and
equity in the consideration of criminal history.” State v. Reece, 625 N.W.2d 822, 824
(Minn. 2001) (quotation omitted). Under the guidelines, a defendant’s presumptive
sentencing range is determined based on the severity level of the offense and the
defendant’s criminal-history score. Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2 (Supp. 2023). An offender’s
criminal-history score is the sum of the points assigned to their eligible prior felonies,
custody status at the time of the offense, prior misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors, and
prior juvenile adjudications. Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.B (Supp. 2023).
The guidelines provide that a non-Minnesota offense may be counted as a felony
for criminal- history-score purposes only if, “based on the elements of the prior non-
Minnesota offense,” it would “both be defined as a felony in Minnesota, and the offender
received a sentence of 366 days or more, which includes the equivalent of a stay of
5
imposition.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.B.5.b (Supp. 2023); see also State v. Pruitt, 16
N.W.3d 856, 860 (Minn. App. 2025). The burden is on the state to “show that a prior
conviction qualifies for inclusion within the criminal-history score.” Williams v. State, 910
N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 2018).
Here, the state acknowledges that it failed to prove at sentencing that Pierre’s prior
Florida convictions satisfy the conditions in guidelines section 2.B.5.b, such that the prior
convictions could be counted towards Pierre’s criminal-history score. The district court
therefore abused its discretion in basing Pierre’s sentence on an unsubstantiated criminal-
history score.
The appropriate remedy in this circumstance is to reverse Pierre’s sentence and
remand for further proceedings. Because Pierre did not contest the inclusion of the Florida
convictions in his criminal-history score at the time of sentencing, the state on remand “is
permitted to further develop the sentencing record so that the district court can
appropriately make its determination.” State v. Outlaw, 748 N.W.2d 349, 356 (Minn. App.
2008), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2008).
Reversed and remanded.