John Kevin Melina, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A25-1657

John Kevin Melina, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

State of Minnesota,
Respondent.

Filed July 20, 2026
Affirmed
Ede, Judge

Wright County District Court
File Nos. 86-CR-18-1000, 86-CR-18-2741, 86-CR-18-5642

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Andrew J. Nelson, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

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

Brian A. Lutes, Wright County Attorney, Jennifer K. Buske, Assistant County Attorney,
Buffalo, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Ede, Presiding Judge; Bentley, Judge; and Halbrooks,
Judge.
∗

∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
EDE, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s order denying his motion to correct his
sentences in three separate matters. He argues that the district court abused its discretion in
determining that he received felony-level sentences in each case because his convictions
were deemed gross misdemeanors based on the length of the imprisonment terms that the
court imposed. We affirm.
FACTS
In 2018, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant John Kevin Melina in
three separate complaints—district court file nos. 86 -CR-18-1000 (file 1000), 86-CR-18-
2741 (file 2741), and 86 -CR-18-5642 (file 5642)—that each alleged one count of felony
fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle, in violation of Minnesota Statutes section
609.487, subdivision 3 (2016). The charges in each file arose from incidents in February
2018 (file 1000), May 2018 (file 2741), and October 2018 (file 5642). 1
In June 2018, Melina reached a plea agreement with the state to resolve file 1000
and file 2741 and pleaded guilty to the felony fleeing charges in each file, and the matter
proceeded to a sentencing hearing. As to file 1000, the district court stayed imposition of
sentence and placed Melina on probation for three years under certain conditions, including
that he serve 180 days in jail. Concerning file 2741, the district court likewise stayed

1 Minnesota Statutes section 609.487, subdivision 3 (2018) —the version of the statute
under which the state charged Melina in file 5642—is identical to the 2016 provision cited
above.
3
imposition of sentence and placed Melina on probation for three years under certain
conditions, including a jail sanction of 180 days, concurrent with the carceral term in file
1000. The district court also filed sentencing orders in both matters, stating for each fleeing
charge, among other things: that the “level of sentence” is “felony”; that the “sentence is a
stay of imposition pursuant to [Minnesota Statutes section] 609.135”; that “successful
completion of probation will result in a misdemeanor conviction”; that the statute of
conviction is subdivision 3 of Minnesota Statutes section 609.487; that Melina “is placed
on supervised probation for 3 years ”; and that Melina is “sentenced to 180 days in the
Wright County Jail.”2 The district court made no departure findings as to these two cases.
In November 2019, Melina reached a plea agreement with the state to resolve file
5642. The district court held an omnibus hearing in file 5642 concurrently with probation-
violation hearings in file 1000 and file 2741. Melina pleaded guilty in file 5642 and
proceeded immediately to sentencing. The district court stayed imposition of sentence and
ordered that Melina serve 180 days in jail, “concurrent to [his] other two files,” noting that
the court was giving Melina “another chance to keep these as misdemeanors.” And the
district court filed a sentencing order in file 5642 providing, inter alia: that the “level of
sentence” is “felony”; that the “sentence is a stay of imposition pursuant to [Minnesota
Statutes section] 609.135”; that “successful completion of probation will result in a
misdemeanor conviction”; that the statute of conviction is subdivision 3 of Minnesota
Statutes section 609.487; that Melina “is placed on supervised probation for 3 years”; and

2 The sentencing order in file 2741 also provides that the sentence in that case is concurrent
with file 1000.
4
that Melina is “sentenced to 180 days in the Wright County Jail.”3 The district court made
no departure findings as to its disposition of file 5642.
During the same hearing, the district court addressed the probation violations in file
1000 and file 2741 that arose from Melina’s admission to the conduct underlying file 5642.
The district court reinstated Melina on probation in file 1000 and file 2741, ordering,
among other things, that he “serve 30 days [in] jail.” And the district court filed amended
sentencing orders in file 1000 and file 2741, adding the 30-day jail sanction but otherwise
maintaining the same terms and conditions for those files, as described above. The district
court made no departure findings in addressing the probation violations and amending the
dispositions in file 1000 and file 2741.
At a hearing in September 2020, Melina admitted that he violated certain terms and
conditions of his probation in all three files. 4 Concerning file 1000, the district court
vacated the stay of imposition of sentence, imposed a prison term of 12 months and one
day, and stayed execution of that sentence for three years and one day, placing Melina on
supervised probation with the condition that he serve 50 days in jail. As to file 2741 and
file 5642, the district court similarly vacated the stays of imposition of sentences in each
case, imposed 13-month prison terms, and stayed execution of each sentence for three years
and one day, placing Melina on supervised probation with the condition that he serve 50

3 The sentencing order in file 5642 also provides that the sentence in that case is “concurrent
with another case number,” apparently referring to both file 1000 and file 2741.

4 At the hearing during which he admitted these probation violations, Melina repeatedly
told the district court that he understood that his admissions would result in his convictions
in file 1000, file 2741, and file 5642 remaining felonies.
5
days in jail. The district court ordered that the sentences it imposed in all three matters run
concurrent with each other.
The amended sentencing orders addressing these probation violations provide that,
as to the felony fleeing charges in each case, the “level of sentence” is “felony,” the statute
of conviction is subdivision 3 of Minnesota Statutes section 609.487, and Melina received
each of the aforementioned prison terms under stay s of execution of sentence, with
probationary periods of three years and one day and a jail sanctions of 50 days. The district
court also noted in the amended sentencing orders that these sentences were not departures
from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.
In March 2022, a prosecutor in a separate criminal case against Melina—unrelated
to file 1000—mischaracterized the sentence in that file, before correcting the error:
Then file 86-CR-18-1000, felony flee peace officer in a motor
vehicle. Although it does appear, Your Honor, that that was
sentenced as a gross misdemeanor, the charge was a
felony. . . .

. . . .

. . . I’m sorry, Your Honor. There was a three-year term
of probation on . . . file . . . 1000 to court services. So it
actually looks like a stay of execution, my apologies. So that
does appear to be a felony with the local jail time ordered.

In January 2025, Melina moved to correct his sentences in all three cases under
Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, contending that his
convictions were gross misdemeanors “because the [original] sentence[s]
6
imposed . . . [were] within the limits provided by law for a gross misdemeanor.” 5 The
district court later held a hearing on the motions and ruled, “based on [the court’s] review
of all three files, with the revocation of the stay of imposition and the resentencing to a stay
of execution of . . . sentence, [Melina] . . . received convictions for three felonies.” And the
district court filed a written order memorializing its ruling to that effect, captioned with the
case numbers for file 1000, file 2741, and file 5642.
Melina appeals from that order.

DECISION
In challenging the district court’s order denying his motion to correct his sentences
in file 1000, file 2741, and file 5642, Melina contends that the court “abused its discretion
when it found that he had received felony-level sentences .” More specifically, Melina
maintains that, “when [he] was charged in all three cases, a gross misdemeanor was defined
as a sentence between 91 days and one year,” that he “was sentenced to 180 days in the
Wright County Jail in all three files,” and that “[a] felony conviction is deemed a gross
misdemeanor if the sentence imposed is within gross misdemeanor limits.” The state
counters that “Melina received felony-level sentences on files 1000, 2741, and 5642.” In
support of this argument, the state asserts that the 180-day jail terms were conditions of his
probation under the initial stays of imposition of sentence in the three matters. We agree
with the state.

5 Before Melina filed these motions, the district court discharged him from probation in
each matter, without further relevant amendments to the sentences in each case.
7
“Appellate courts ‘review a district court’s denial of a motion to correct a sentence
under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, for an abuse of
discretion.’” Pizarro-Rios v. State, 23 N.W.3d 626, 631 (Minn. App. 2025) (quoting Evans
v. State, 880 N.W.2d 357, 359 (Minn. 2016)). “The district court abuses its discretion when
its decision is based on an erroneous application of the law or is against logic and the facts
in the record.” Id. (quotation omitted). “A defendant bears the burden of proof to
demonstrate that a sentence was unlawful under rule 27.03.” Mason v. State, 16 N.W.3d
828, 835 (Minn. App. 2025) (citing Williams v. State, 910 N.W.2d 736, 742–43 (Minn.
2018)), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 23, 2025).
Minnesota Statutes section 609.487, subdivision 3, provides that a person who, “by
means of a motor vehicle flees or attempts to flee a peace officer who is acting in the lawful
discharge of an official duty,” and who “knows or should reasonably know the same to be
a peace officer, is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more
than three years and one day or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.”
“Notwithstanding a conviction is for a felony[,] . . . the conviction is deemed to be for . . . a
gross misdemeanor if the sentence imposed is within the limits provided by law for
a . . . gross misdemeanor as defined in section 609.02 . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 609.13,
subd. 1(1) (2016). In that connection, Minnesota Statutes section 609.02,
subdivision 2 (2016), provides that “‘[f]elony’ means a crime for which a sentence of
imprisonment for more than one year may be imposed.” “‘ Misdemeanor’ means a crime
for which a sentence of not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $1,000, or both,
8
may be imposed.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 3 (2016). And “‘[g]ross misdemeanor’
means any crime which is not a felony or misdemeanor.” Id., subd. 4 (2016).
“It is clear under both the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure and persuasive
caselaw that the responsibility for stating the precise terms of a sentence rests squarely with
the [district] court.” State v. Staloch, 643 N.W.2d 329, 332 (Minn. App. 2002) (footnote
omitted). Moreover, the district court’s “oral pronouncement of a sentence controls.” Id.
And “local incarceration is a recognized condition of probation.” State v. Moody, 806
N.W.2d 874, 877 (Minn. App. 2011), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 28, 2012); see also Minn.
Stat. § 609.135, subds. 1, 4 (2016) (providing that a district court “may stay imposition or
execution of sentence and . . . place the defendant on probation . . . on the terms the court
prescribes, including intermediate sanctions when practicable”; that “the term
‘intermediate sanctions’ includes but is not limited to incarceration in a local jail”; and that
“[t]he court may, as a condition of probation, require the defendant to serve up to one year
incarceration in a county jail”).6
As to each file, after Melina pleaded guilty to felony fleeing a peace officer, the
district court did not impose any sentence whatsoever but rather initially stayed the
imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for three years under certain
conditions, including that he serve 180 days in jail. These were not sentences imposed by
the district court within the limits provided by law for a gross misdemeanor, as defined in

6 Minnesota Statutes section 609.02, subdivisions 2 to 4 (2018), Minnesota Statutes section
609.13, subdivision 1(1) (2018), and Minnesota Statutes section 609.135, subdivisions 1,
4 (2018)—the versions of those statutes applicable to file 5642 —are identical to the 2016
provisions cited above.
9
Minnesota Statutes section 609.02, which would have resulted in the convictions being
deemed gross misdemeanors. See Minn. Stat. § 609.13, subd. 1(1). Indeed, the district
court made none of the findings that it would have had to make if it had actually imposed
a sentence and durationally departed downward in any of the three matters. See State v.
Stempfley, 900 N.W.2d 412, 416–17 (Minn. 2017) (“The Minnesota Rules of Criminal
Procedure, the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, and Minnesota Statutes section 244.10,
subdivision 2 (2016), all require the district court to make a record of its reasons for any
deviation from the Guidelines.”); see also Minn. Stat. § 244.10, subd. 2 (“[T]he district
court shall make written findings of fact as to the reasons for departure from the Sentencing
Guidelines in each case in which the court imposes or stays a sentence that deviates from
the Sentencing Guidelines applicable to the case.”); Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 4(C)
(“[T]he court must make findings of fact supporting the departure.”); Minn. Sent’g
Guidelines 2.D.1.c (Supp. 2017) (“In exercising the discretion to depart from a presumptive
sentence, the court must disclose in writing or on the record the particular substantial and
compelling circumstances that make the departure more appropriate than the presumptive
sentence.”).
7 Instead, the district court stayed the imposition of sentence, placed Melina on
probation, and imposed terms of local incarceration as probationary conditions in the three
cases. See Minn. Stat. § 609.135, subds. 1, 4; see also Moody, 806 N.W.2d at 877.

7 Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines 2.D.1.c (2018) and Minnesota Statutes section 244.10,
subdivision 2 (2018)— the versions of the sentencing guidelines and the statute applicable
to file 5642—are identical to the 2016 provisions cited above.
10
Consistent with the district court’s oral pronouncements on the record, the court’s
initial written sentencing orders in the three matters all state for each fleeing charge, among
other things: that the “level of sentence” is “felony”; that the “sentence i s a stay of
imposition pursuant to [Minnesota Statutes section] 609.135”; that “successful completion
of probation will result in a misdemeanor conviction”; that the statute of conviction is
subdivision 3 of Minnesota Statutes section 609.487; that Melina “is placed on supervised
probation for 3 years”; and that Melina is “sentenced to 180 days in the Wright County
Jail.” Given the district court court’s controlling oral pronouncements of probation with
terms of local incarceration as conditions in all three files and its written sentencing orders
consistent therewith, we reject Melina’s claim that he received gross-misdemeanor
sentences based on references to the jail terms as “sentence[s]” in plea petitions and by
defense counsel. See Staloch, 643 N.W.2d at 332. For the same reasons, we are
unconvinced by Melina’s reliance on the March 2022 brief mischaracterization of the
sentence in file 1000 by a prosecutor in a separate, unrelated criminal case, which the
prosecutor promptly corrected. See id.
In sum, Melina has not met his burden of establishing that his felony sentences in
the three matters before us are unlawful under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure
27.03, subdivision 9. See Mason, 16 N.W.3d at 835. We conclude that the district court
acted within its discretion in denying his motions to correct his sentences because its
11
decision is neither based on an erroneous application of the law nor against logic and the
facts in the record. See Pizarro-Rios, 23 N.W.3d at 631.8
Affirmed.

8 While Melina’s arguments on appeal largely focus on the 2018 and 2019 sentences he
received in each file, the district court’s September 2020 probation- violation decisions in
vacating the stays of imposition of sentence in each case reinforce our conclusion that all
three matters are felony rather than gross-misdemeanor convictions. In particular: the court
stayed the execution of felony-level sentences in each file (i.e., 12 months and one day in
file 1000, and 13 months in file 2741 and file 5642); the length of the probation terms that
the court imposed (i.e., three years and one day) was longer than that permitted under
Minnesota law for gross misdemeanors (i.e., two years); the court noted in the amended
sentencing orders that the sentences were not departures from the Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines; and the court’s controlling oral pronouncements and consistent amended
sentencing orders show that the court imposed probation with terms of local incarceration
as conditions as to all three matters. See Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 2; Minn. Stat.
§ 609.135, subd. 2 (2016); Stempfley, 900 N.W.2d at 416–17; Staloch, 643 N.W.2d at 332.
Minnesota Statutes section 609.135, subdivision 2 (2018)—the version of that statute
applicable to file 5642—is identical to the 2016 provision just cited.