State v. Borg, 2013 Minn. LEXIS 365

Borg was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct in September 2008 and sentenced to 48 months with restitution.
An initial restitution order was issued but the amount was held open for later determination.
Borg requested a restitution hearing after a later challenge to the amount; a hearing occurred and on July 24, 2009 an order amended restitution downward by $337.10.
The State appealed the amended restitution order more than 90 days after the initial sentence but within 90 days after the amended order.
The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, relying on Hughes to limit timing of appeal from restitution.
The Minnesota Supreme Court held that a restitution amendment is a “sentence imposed” and appeal is timely when filed within 90 days of the amended order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 28.04 allows an appeal from an amended sentencing order.	Rule 28.04(1)(2) permits appeal from any sentence.	Restitution is not part of the sentence.	Yes, amendment is appealable as a sentence.
Whether court-ordered restitution is part of a defendant’s sentence.	Restitution is part of the sentence under Minn. Stat. 609.10.	Restitution can be amended separately from sentence.	Restitution is part of the sentence.
Whether Hughes controls timeliness of the State’s appeal.	Hughes is distinguishable and not controlling for amended restitution.	Hughes determines finality for retroactivity, limiting timing.	Hughes not dispositive; timing analyzed under Rule 28.04 for amended orders.

State v. Rourke, 773 N.W.2d 913 (Minn. 2009) (limits State’s right to appeal and interprets procedural rules de novo)
State v. Hughes, 758 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 2008) (timing of restitution issues and finality for retroactivity purposes)
State v. Gaiovnik, 794 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 2011) (restitution may be part of sentence)