Cited by

We reverse to vacate appellant’s convictions for counts II through IV 2 A clerical error is an error that “cannot reasonably be attributed to the exercise of judicial consideration or discretion.” State v. Pflepsen , n.4 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted).

-68 (Minn. 1999); d 85, 88 (Minn. 1982) (prohibiting district court from imposing “a more severe penalty than the sentence which it previously imp osed”); State v. Prudhomme , (holding that after a sentence has been set aside, a district cour

See State v. Pflepsen , , 766 (Minn. 1999).

“Because the testimony and statements recorded in hearing and trial transcripts are often imprecise and unclear with respect to sentencing and conviction orders, we typically look to the official judgment of conviction, which generally appears as a separate entry in the file, as conclusive evid ence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” -81 (Minn. 2015).

See State v. Pflepsen , (“Questions concerning the authority and jurisdiction of the lower courts are legal issues subject to de novo review.”).

State v. Pflepsen , , 763 (Minn. 1999).

When a jury finds a defendant guilty of more than one offense from a single course of conduct, the district court should “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”

See State v. Pflepsen , , 764 (Minn. 1999).

“Questions conc erning the authority and j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e l o w e r c o u r t s a r e l e g a l i s s u e s s u b j e c t t o d e novo review.”

State v. Pflepsen , , 766 (Minn. 1999).

(directing cour ts issuing conviction orders to be “very clear” about the offense of which the defendant is formally adjudicated guilty).

(“[W]e typically look to the official judgment of conviction .

-66 (Minn. 1999) (vacating convictions of included offenses).

See State v. Pflepsen , (noting that a district court has no authority to modify a sentence or the conditions of probation once probation has expired) ; d 64, 67 (Minn. 2009) (concluding that a district court lacked statutory authority to order restitution after a period of p

See State v. Pflepsen , , 766 (Minn. 1999).

See State v. Pflepsen , (directing courts issuing conviction orders to be “very clear” about the offense of which the defendant is formally adjudicated guilty).

See *467 Spann v. State , , 573 (Minn. 2007) (noting that a written judgment of conviction provides "conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated" (quoting State v. Pflepsen , , 766 (Minn. 1999) ) ).

See State v. Pflepsen , (“[W]e typically look to the official judgment of conviction .

the supreme court emphasized the importance of adhering to section 611A.04, subdivision 1(a), noting that the district court’s decision not to impose restitution in view of a pending civil lawsuit was “inconsistent with the law and policy governing restitution.” Id.

“Questions concerning the authority and jurisdiction of the lower courts are legal issues subject to de novo review.” .

I. Jurisdiction “Questions concerning the authority and jurisdiction of the lower courts are legal issues subject to de novo review.”

(“Questions concerning the authority and jurisdiction of the lower courts are legal issues subject to de novo review.”).

(directing courts issuing conviction orders to be “very clear” about the offense of which the defendant is formally adjudicated guilty).

7, in conviction orders); (M inn.

(“‘[W]hen the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act * * * the court [is] to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.

“[Appellate courts] have long recognized that the ‘conviction’ prohibited by this statute is not a guilty verdict, but is rather a formal adjudication of guilt.”