State v. Meger, 901 N.W.2d 418

Brian William Meger pleaded guilty in 2006 to failing to register as a predatory offender and received a 20‑month prison sentence as part of a plea agreement.
In January 2007 the district court amended Meger’s sentence to add a 10‑year conditional‑release term based on DOC’s determination that he was a risk‑level‑III offender.
Meger filed a motion under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9 (motion to correct an illegal sentence), arguing the conditional‑release term was unlawful because no jury found, and he did not admit, his risk‑level.
After this court decided State v. Her (holding that a jury must find—or the defendant must admit—risk‑level III before imposing the §243.166 10‑year conditional‑release term), the district court granted Meger’s motion, vacated the conditional‑release term, and ordered his release.
The court of appeals affirmed. The State sought review. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, holding Her announced a new rule that does not apply retroactively to Meger’s final sentence, so his conditional‑release term was lawful when imposed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Her applies retroactively to a sentence final before Her	Meger: Her is an old rule (predictable application of Blakely/Apprendi) so it should apply retroactively and render the conditional‑release term illegal	State: Her announced a new rule not compelled by prior precedent, so it is not retroactive	Held: Her is a new rule under Teague and does not apply retroactively; Meger’s sentence was lawful when imposed
Whether Meger could obtain relief under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9	Meger: Rule 27.03 allows correction of any sentence not authorized by law, so he may challenge the conditional‑release term	State: If Her is not retroactive, the term was authorized when imposed and Rule 27.03 relief is unavailable	Held: Because Her is not retroactive, the conditional‑release term was lawful at imposition and Rule 27.03 relief fails

State v. Her, 862 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 2015) (held jury must find or defendant must admit risk‑level III before imposing 10‑year conditional release under Minn. Stat. §243.166)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (statutory maximum for Apprendi purposes is the maximum a judge may impose based only on facts in the jury verdict or defendant admission)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (clarified the prior‑conviction exception is limited to recognition of a prior conviction)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (framework for determining retroactivity of new constitutional rules in collateral review)
Reynolds v. State, 888 N.W.2d 125 (Minn. 2016) (Rule 27.03 subdivision 9 applies to sentences that are not authorized by law; Blakely‑type rules may render a sentence unauthorized)
Campos v. State, 816 N.W.2d 480 (Minn. 2012) (applied Teague framework for retroactivity questions)