Williams v. State, 910 N.W.2d 736

Background

Williams pleaded guilty in two Minnesota cases (Hennepin and Otter Tail); sentencing worksheets counted several out-of-state convictions and produced criminal-history scores that affected his sentences.
He did not object at sentencing and did not file direct appeals; later he filed pro se, then counsel-led, motions under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, seeking correction of sentences based on alleged miscalculation of his criminal-history score (specifically the treatment of Illinois and Indiana convictions).
District courts reduced some points but concluded the sentences remained lawful (either within the presumptive range or a permissible departure) and denied relief; Hennepin court alternatively treated the motion as a postconviction petition and dismissed it as time-barred without notice.
The court of appeals affirmed in part and remanded in part, and the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review on the specific question of who bears the burden to prove the accuracy of a criminal-history score in a Rule 27.03, subd. 9 motion filed after the direct-appeal period.
The Supreme Court held that when a defendant files a Rule 27.03, subd. 9 motion after the time for direct appeal, the defendant bears the burden of proving the sentence was based on an incorrect criminal-history score.

Issues

Issue	Williams' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Who bears burden to prove criminal-history score accuracy in a Rule 27.03, subd. 9 motion filed after direct-appeal period?	Burden should remain on State because accuracy affects sentencing uniformity and State is better positioned to prove out-of-state convictions	Burden should be on defendant when motion is post-appeal and collateral in nature; defendant is bringing the challenge	Defendant bears the burden to prove the sentence was based on an incorrect criminal-history score

Key Cases Cited

State v. Goff, 418 N.W.2d 169 (Minn. 1988) (discusses burden-shifting and notes defendant may bear burden if challenge is filed outside direct-appeal period)
State v. Marquetti, 322 N.W.2d 316 (Minn. 1982) (State bears burden at sentencing to show prior conviction qualifies for criminal-history score)
State v. McAdoo, 330 N.W.2d 104 (Minn. 1983) (State must prove facts justifying inclusion of out-of-state convictions at sentencing)
State v. Piri, 204 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 1973) (uncontested presentence report can establish prior conviction)
State v. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d 141 (Minn. 2007) (sentence based on incorrect criminal-history score is correctable under Rule 27.03, subd. 9)
State v. Hockensmith, 417 N.W.2d 630 (Minn. 1988) (Minn. rule 27.03, subd. 9 was drafted with reference to former Fed. R. Crim. P. 35)
Stutelberg v. State, 435 N.W.2d 632 (Minn. App. 1989) (post-appeal Rule 27.03 decision that assumed State bore burden at Rule 27.03 stage)
Tscheu v. State, 829 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. 2013) (petitioner bears burden in postconviction proceedings)
United States v. Woods, 986 F.2d 669 (3d Cir. 1993) (federal Rule 35 precedent: defendant bears burden to prove illegality of sentence)
United States v. Castillo-Roman, 774 F.2d 1280 (5th Cir. 1985) (defendant must show material inaccuracy in presentence report and reliance by judge)
United States v. Lewis, 743 F.2d 1127 (5th Cir. 1984) (burden on challenger to show sentence founded on tainted record)
Strickland v. United States, 325 F.2d 970 (8th Cir. 1964) (defendant failed to meet burden in Rule 35 proceeding)