828 N.W.2d 747
Minn. Ct. App.2013Background
- Amundson challenged the district court’s treatment of his Rule 27.03, subd. 9 motion as a postconviction petition under Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3.
- The 2005 aiding-an-offender sentence was an upward departure based solely on a plea agreement, with no on-record reasons for the departure.
- At sentencing, the aiding-an-offender and burglary sentences were presumptive concurrent under the 2001 guidelines, and the aiding-offender sentence did not qualify for permissive consecutive sentencing.
- Misquadace limits and Vazquez clarify that Rule 27.03(9) motions for sentencing corrections are not governed by the two-year postconviction time limit.
- The court remands for resentencing to make the aiding-an-offender sentence concurrent with the 86-month burglary sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err by treating the Rule 27.03(9) motion as a postconviction petition with time limits? | Amundson argues time limits do not apply to Rule 27.03(9) motions. | State concedes Vazquez applies; argues the district court could treat as postconviction relief. | District court erred; motion not subject to § 590.04 time limits. |
| Is the aiding-offender sentence authorized by law? | Amundson contends the sentence is an unauthorized upward departure with no valid reasons. | State argues departure may be supported by the plea agreement, per Givens as modified by Misquadace. | Sentence unauthorized by law; Misquadace applies to future cases; remand required. |
| Is remand appropriate to provide reasons for the departure or to correct the sentence? | Remand to provide reasons is improper; sentence should be corrected to concurrent. | Remand could be used to supply reasons for departure. | Remand for resentencing is required to impose concurrent sentence; Getter rule applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vazquez v. State, 822 N.W.2d 313 (Minn.App.2012) (two-year limit for postconviction relief does not apply to Rule 27.03(9) sentencing corrections)
- State v. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65 (Minn.2002) (plea agreements cannot sole basis of sentencing departure; Misquadace refined Givens)
- State v. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d 141 (Minn.2007) (cannot waive right to challenge sentence, especially criminal-history score)
- State v. Givens, 544 N.W.2d 774 (Minn.1996) (defendant may relinquish right to be sentenced under guidelines (as modified by Misquadace))
- State v. Getter, 665 N.W.2d 514 (Minn.2003) (remand not allowed when no reasons for departure on record; need explicit reasons)
- Williams v. State, 361 N.W.2d 840 (Minn.1985) (clear rule requiring reasons for departure be stated at sentencing)
- State v. Lewis, 656 N.W.2d 535 (Minn.2003) (discussed in context of remand for departure reasons (superseded by Getter))
- State v. Rannow, 703 N.W.2d 575 (Minn.App.2005) (remand with instructions to impose non-departure sentence in light of Getter)
- State v. Hutchinson, 679 N.W.2d 160 (Minn.2004) (Misquadace applicability limited to final/finalized cases)