Cited by

’” d 566, 571 (Minn. App. 2 in support of its assertion that the definition of the non-Minnesota offense should be the “main focus” of the district court’s analysis.

Therefore, the district court must evaluate the precise conduct underlying Kuhns’s South Dakota sex-offender- 4 to argue that because the sex-offender-registration statutes in Minnesota and South Dakota prohibit the same crime of failing to make proper disclosures, they share the same general “nature” and are sufficiently similar to each other for the South Dakota offenses to constitute felonies in Minnesota.

C. The state contends that the district court did not err by assigning prior-felony points for Pruitt’s 2017 federal conviction because the district court’s

To determine whether an offense would be defined as a felony in Minnesota, a “sentencing court should compare the definition of the foreign offense with the definitions of comparable Minnesota offenses but also may consider the nature of the foreign offense and the sentence received.”

Under this guidance, the offense definition is the “main focus.”

3(a) (providing that the penalty for third-degree controlled-substance crimes may be not more than 20 years); (stating that in Minnesota, an offense is classified as a felony if it may be punished by more than one year in prison).

“[T]he sentencing court should compare the definition of the foreign offense with the definitions of comparable Minnesota offenses but also may consider the nature of the foreign offense and the sentence received.”

In Hill v. State, the Minnesota Supreme Court elaborated on this part of the guidelines, stating, “while the main focus should be on the offense definition [of the prior non- Minnesota conviction], the sentencing court should also consider the nature of the offense and the sentence received by the offender.” (quotations omitted).

In doing so, the “sentencing court should compare the definition of the foreign offense with the definitions of comparable Minnesota offenses” but also may consider “the nature of the foreign offense[] and sentence received by offender for the offense.”

“[W]hile the main focus should be on the offense definition, the sentencing court should also consider the nature of the offense and the sentence received by the offender.” Hill v. State , (quotation omitted).

“[W]hile the main focus should be on the offense definition, the sentencing court should also consider the nature of the offense and the sentence received by the offender.” (internal quotations omitted).

To determine whether a prior foreign conviction may be considered for the purpose of a criminal-history score, “ the sentencing court should compare the definition of the foreign offense with the definitions of comparable Minnesota offenses but also may consider the nature of the foreign offense and the sentence received by the offender for the offense.”

incl ud[es] the element of intent to defraud.” Hill v. State , (citing State v. Ibarra , ).

“[T]he sentencing court should compare the definition of the foreign offense with the definitions of comparable Minnesota offenses but also may consider the nature of the foreign offense and the sentence received by the offender for the offense.” Hill v. State

2.B.502; -61 (Minn. 1992).

to say that in every case involving an out -of-state or foreign conviction the parties must engage in a ‘mini -trial’ to determine what the conduct was underlying the foreign or out-of-state conviction.”

We likewise declined to decide the burden of proof issue in Hill v. State , , 60 (Minn. 1992).

See Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc., n.9 (Minn. 2017) (noting the utility of applicable and persuasive dicta)

(“[O]bviously if the sentencing court abuses its discretion in decidi ng whether or not to designate an out-of-state conviction as a felony for purposes of computing the defendant’s criminal history score, then the court’s determination may be reversed.”).

at 2249; (stating that “while the main focus should be on the offense definition, the sentencing court should also consider ‘the nature’ of the offense and the sentence received by the offender” (quotation omitted)).

Guidelines II.B.5 ("The designation of out-of-state convictions as felonies, gross misdemeanors, or misdemeanors shall be governed by the offense definitions and sentences provided in Minnesota law.”)

II.B.504; see also Reece, d at 825

(“[I]t would simply be unfair to those defendants receiving criminal history points for prior Minnesota convictions if their counterparts with prior foreign or out-of-state convictions of similar offenses for the same basic conduct did not receive criminal history points for those offenses.”).

(stating, in context of sentencing guidelines, that sentencing court should consider the nature of the offense for purposes of determining the equivalent Minnesota offense).

-62 (Minn.1992), the supreme court held that, in deciding whether out-of-state convictions can be treated as felonies for determining a guidelines criminal history score, the court may look to the definition of the offense, the nature of the offense, and the sentence received.