This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-1067
Antonio Medina, petitioner, Appellant,
vs.
State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Filed February 16, 2016 Affirmed Randall, Judge *
Rice County District Court File No. 66-CR-08-1423
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Kathryn J. Lockwood, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
John L. Fossum, Rice County Attorney, Terence Swihart, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Chutich, Judge; and
Randall, Judge.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
RANDALL, Judge
Appellant Antonio Medina challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to
correct his sentence under rule 27.03, subdivision 9, of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Medina argues that the district court improperly calculated his criminal-history
score by including two convictions he accrued after the charged offense in arriving at the
presumptive sentence, and that this improperly calculated presumptive sentence incorrectly
factored into his plea negotiations to render an illegal sentence. We conclude the district
court properly calculated Medina’s criminal-history score and properly interpreted and
applied the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. Affirmed.
FACTS
This case arises from Antonio Medina’s sentence for second-degree murder. On
April 17, 2008, the state charged Medina with second-degree murder after DNA evidence
linked him to a November 2005 homicide. On May 23, 2008, Medina pleaded guilty to
the charge.
Medina’s plea agreement provided that, upon sentencing, he and the state would
jointly recommend a 312-month commitment to the Commissioner of Corrections. The
presentence investigation report calculated his criminal-history score to be two, based on
two felony convictions: an August 2006 theft conviction and a November 2007 driving-
while-intoxicated conviction. Medina incurred both convictions after committing the
second-degree-murder offense but before the state charged him for it.
2 At the sentencing hearing, the district court noted the plea bargain between the
parties and adopted their joint recommendation, sentencing Medina to 312 months.
Medina later filed a pro se motion to correct his sentence, arguing that the district court
improperly enhanced his sentence based on an incorrectly calculated criminal-history
score. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9. 1 The district court denied Medina’s motion.
Medina appeals.
DECISION
This court reviews a district court’s determination of a defendant’s criminal-history
score for abuse of discretion. State v. Stillday, 646 N.W.2d 557, 561 (Minn. App. 2002),
review denied (Minn. Aug. 20, 2002). We review the district court’s interpretation of the
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, a question of law, de novo. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d at
148. When interpreting a certain provision, “we shall not disregard the plain and
unambiguous language of the sentencing guidelines and accompanying commentary.”
State v. Mondry, 682 N.W.2d 183, 184 (Minn. App. 2004). “On appeal from the district
court's denial of a [motion to correct a sentence], this court will not reevaluate a sentence
if the district court's discretion has been properly exercised and the sentence is authorized
by law.” Anderson v. State, 794 N.W.2d 137, 139 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotations omitted),
review denied (Minn. Apr. 27, 2011).
1 The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a criminal defendant cannot waive or forfeit the right to challenge his sentence and, in particular, the calculation of his criminal-history score. See State v. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d 141, 147–48 (Minn. 2007).
3 Presumptive sentences are governed by the guidelines in effect on the date of the
conviction offense. See Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072, 2078 (2013) (holding that
to sentence an offender under guidelines not in effect at the time of the offense violates the
Ex Post Facto Clause). The presumptive sentence for any offense takes into account the
offender’s criminal-history score and the severity level of the charged offense, prescribing
a corresponding range. Minn. Sent. Guidelines II (2005). “[S]entences must be based on
correct criminal history scores, as these scores are the mechanism district courts use to
ensure that defendants with similar criminal histories receive approximately equal
sanctions for the same offense.” Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d at 147.
Under the 2005 guidelines—those in effect at the time of Medina’s offense—an
offender’s criminal-history score is computed by assigning “a particular weight for . . .
every felony conviction for which a felony sentence was stayed or imposed before the
current sentencing or for which a stay of imposition of sentence was given before the
current sentencing.” Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.B.1 (2005) (emphasis added). “The phrase
‘before the current sentencing’ means that in order for prior convictions to be used in
computing [a] criminal history score, the felony sentence for the prior offense must have
been stayed or imposed before sentencing for the current offense.” Minn. Sent. Guidelines
cmt. II.B.101. (2005). Accordingly, “an offender’s conviction of an offense committed
subsequent to the current offense, but sentenced prior to the current sentencing, is properly
included in the defendant’s criminal-history score.” Mondry, 682 N.W.2d at 184.
Once the appropriate criminal-history score is determined, the presumptive fixed
sentence for a felony conviction is found in the grid cell at the intersection of the criminal-
4 history-score column and the offense-severity-level row. Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.C
(2005). “[I]mposition of the presumptive sentence under the Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines is mandatory absent additional findings.” Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d at 147.
Here, the district court denied Medina’s motion to correct his sentence, concluding
that his criminal-history score had been properly calculated as of the date of his sentencing
to reflect the two previous convictions. The district court further concluded that the
presumptive sentence for second-degree murder was correctly calculated to be 346 months,
with a permissible range of 295 to 415 months.
Medina argues that his sentence warrants correction because his criminal-history
score at the time of the offense—rather than at the time of sentencing—was zero. Because
he contemplated a sentence at the low end of the range in plea negotiations, he claims the
district court should have corrected his sentence to 261 months. That would be the low end
of the presumptive range for second-degree murder applicable to an offender with a
criminal-history score of zero.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-1067
Antonio Medina, petitioner, Appellant,
vs.
State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Filed February 16, 2016 Affirmed Randall, Judge *
Rice County District Court File No. 66-CR-08-1423
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Kathryn J. Lockwood, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
John L. Fossum, Rice County Attorney, Terence Swihart, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Chutich, Judge; and
Randall, Judge.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
RANDALL, Judge
Appellant Antonio Medina challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to
correct his sentence under rule 27.03, subdivision 9, of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Medina argues that the district court improperly calculated his criminal-history
score by including two convictions he accrued after the charged offense in arriving at the
presumptive sentence, and that this improperly calculated presumptive sentence incorrectly
factored into his plea negotiations to render an illegal sentence. We conclude the district
court properly calculated Medina’s criminal-history score and properly interpreted and
applied the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. Affirmed.
FACTS
This case arises from Antonio Medina’s sentence for second-degree murder. On
April 17, 2008, the state charged Medina with second-degree murder after DNA evidence
linked him to a November 2005 homicide. On May 23, 2008, Medina pleaded guilty to
the charge.
Medina’s plea agreement provided that, upon sentencing, he and the state would
jointly recommend a 312-month commitment to the Commissioner of Corrections. The
presentence investigation report calculated his criminal-history score to be two, based on
two felony convictions: an August 2006 theft conviction and a November 2007 driving-
while-intoxicated conviction. Medina incurred both convictions after committing the
second-degree-murder offense but before the state charged him for it.
2 At the sentencing hearing, the district court noted the plea bargain between the
parties and adopted their joint recommendation, sentencing Medina to 312 months.
Medina later filed a pro se motion to correct his sentence, arguing that the district court
improperly enhanced his sentence based on an incorrectly calculated criminal-history
score. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9. 1 The district court denied Medina’s motion.
Medina appeals.
DECISION
This court reviews a district court’s determination of a defendant’s criminal-history
score for abuse of discretion. State v. Stillday, 646 N.W.2d 557, 561 (Minn. App. 2002),
review denied (Minn. Aug. 20, 2002). We review the district court’s interpretation of the
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, a question of law, de novo. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d at
148. When interpreting a certain provision, “we shall not disregard the plain and
unambiguous language of the sentencing guidelines and accompanying commentary.”
State v. Mondry, 682 N.W.2d 183, 184 (Minn. App. 2004). “On appeal from the district
court's denial of a [motion to correct a sentence], this court will not reevaluate a sentence
if the district court's discretion has been properly exercised and the sentence is authorized
by law.” Anderson v. State, 794 N.W.2d 137, 139 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotations omitted),
review denied (Minn. Apr. 27, 2011).
1 The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a criminal defendant cannot waive or forfeit the right to challenge his sentence and, in particular, the calculation of his criminal-history score. See State v. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d 141, 147–48 (Minn. 2007).
3 Presumptive sentences are governed by the guidelines in effect on the date of the
conviction offense. See Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072, 2078 (2013) (holding that
to sentence an offender under guidelines not in effect at the time of the offense violates the
Ex Post Facto Clause). The presumptive sentence for any offense takes into account the
offender’s criminal-history score and the severity level of the charged offense, prescribing
a corresponding range. Minn. Sent. Guidelines II (2005). “[S]entences must be based on
correct criminal history scores, as these scores are the mechanism district courts use to
ensure that defendants with similar criminal histories receive approximately equal
sanctions for the same offense.” Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d at 147.
Under the 2005 guidelines—those in effect at the time of Medina’s offense—an
offender’s criminal-history score is computed by assigning “a particular weight for . . .
every felony conviction for which a felony sentence was stayed or imposed before the
current sentencing or for which a stay of imposition of sentence was given before the
current sentencing.” Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.B.1 (2005) (emphasis added). “The phrase
‘before the current sentencing’ means that in order for prior convictions to be used in
computing [a] criminal history score, the felony sentence for the prior offense must have
been stayed or imposed before sentencing for the current offense.” Minn. Sent. Guidelines
cmt. II.B.101. (2005). Accordingly, “an offender’s conviction of an offense committed
subsequent to the current offense, but sentenced prior to the current sentencing, is properly
included in the defendant’s criminal-history score.” Mondry, 682 N.W.2d at 184.
Once the appropriate criminal-history score is determined, the presumptive fixed
sentence for a felony conviction is found in the grid cell at the intersection of the criminal-
4 history-score column and the offense-severity-level row. Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.C
(2005). “[I]mposition of the presumptive sentence under the Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines is mandatory absent additional findings.” Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d at 147.
Here, the district court denied Medina’s motion to correct his sentence, concluding
that his criminal-history score had been properly calculated as of the date of his sentencing
to reflect the two previous convictions. The district court further concluded that the
presumptive sentence for second-degree murder was correctly calculated to be 346 months,
with a permissible range of 295 to 415 months.
Medina argues that his sentence warrants correction because his criminal-history
score at the time of the offense—rather than at the time of sentencing—was zero. Because
he contemplated a sentence at the low end of the range in plea negotiations, he claims the
district court should have corrected his sentence to 261 months. That would be the low end
of the presumptive range for second-degree murder applicable to an offender with a
criminal-history score of zero.
We understand Medina’s argument; however, the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines
preclude us from adopting it. Under the sentencing guidelines, an offender’s criminal-
history score includes any felony sentence imposed prior to sentencing on the charged
offense and is calculated as of the date of the current sentencing. See Minn. Sent.
Guidelines II.B (2005). This court has considered and rejected the same argument. See
Mondry, 682 N.W.2d at 185. In Mondry, the defendant argued that two North Dakota
convictions he incurred after the charged offense but before sentencing on the charged
offense should not have been included in the calculation of his criminal-history score. Id.
5 at 183–84. Rejecting his argument, this court reiterated that, because Mondry had been
sentenced for the North Dakota offenses before sentencing on the charged offense, his
criminal-history score properly included them. Id. at 185.
As in Mondry, Medina’s two felony-conviction sentences—for an August 2006 theft
offense and a November 2007 DWI offense—predated sentencing on July 10, 2008, for the
second-degree murder. Accordingly, they necessarily informed his criminal-history score.
See Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.B (2005). For the theft, a severity-level-two offense, he
should have been assigned one half point and for the DWI, a severity-level-seven offense,
he should have been assigned one and a half points, for a total of two criminal history
points. Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.B.1.a (2005). His presentencing worksheet reflects
exactly these calculations, and his criminal-history score was properly calculated.
His presumptive sentence, which aided the probation department’s recommendation
and Medina’s plea bargain with the state, was also properly calculated. Second-degree
murder was a severity-level-eleven offense under the 2005 guidelines. Minn. Sent.
Guidelines IV (2005). The 2005 grid shows that the intersection of severity-level-eleven
and criminal-history-score-two for a second-degree-murder charge yields a presumptive
sentence of 346 months, with a permissible range of 295 to 415 months. The sentencing
hearing transcript reflects this exact sentence.
Medina’s criminal-history score and his presumptive sentence were properly
calculated. The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Medina. The district
court properly interpreted the sentencing guidelines when it sentenced him to 312 months.
Affirmed.