Opinion
A23-0456
10-06-2023
Christopher W. Haakenstad, petitioner, Appellant, v. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-14-32205
Considered and decided by Gaïtas, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Theodora Gaïtas Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Christopher Haakenstad appeals the district court's denial of his motion to correct his 2016 sentence for second-degree drug possession-which expired in July 2019-arguing that the district court relied on an incorrect criminal history score. Because a district court has no authority to correct an expired sentence, and Haakenstad's sentence was below the presumptive sentencing range even as calculated using the criminal history score that he proposes, we affirm.
2. In November 2014, Haakenstad pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree possession of a controlled substance. See Minn. Stat. § 152.022, subd. 2(a)(1) (2014) ("A person is guilty of controlled substance crime in the second degree if . . . the person unlawfully possesses one or more mixtures of a total weight of six grams or more containing . . . methamphetamine.").
3. Before sentencing, a criminal-record summary was prepared, which determined that Haakenstad's criminal history score was five. The presumptive sentence prescribed for second-degree drug possession with a criminal history score of five was a sentence within the range of 84 to 117 months in prison. See Minn. Sent'g Guidelines 4.A (2014) (providing the presumptive sentencing range).
4. In June 2016, the district court sentenced Haakenstad to 54 months in prison, which was a downward durational departure from the presumptive sentence. The district court determined that the departure was appropriate because Haakenstad's "crime [was] less onerous than usual."
5. Haakenstad's sentence expired in July 2019.
At the time of sentencing, Haakenstad had 491 days of jail credit, which was applied toward his sentence.
6. In December 2022, Haakenstad moved to "recalculate [his] criminal history score" for the 2016 second-degree drug possession conviction. He asserted that the criminal-record summary had improperly classified one of his prior out-of-state convictions as a felony and that his correct criminal history score at the time of sentencing was a four.
7. Respondent State of Minnesota agreed that Haakenstad's criminal history score had been miscalculated. But the state pointed out that the district court did not have authority to modify Haakenstad's criminal history score or sentence because the sentence had expired. The state also noted that Haakenstad's sentence was a downward durational departure even from the presumptive sentence as calculated with a criminal history score of four.
8. In a letter to the parties, the district court stated that it "agree[d] with the [state's] legal opinion" and would "take no further action." Haakenstad now appeals this decision.
9. We construe Haakenstad's motion to recalculate his criminal history score as a motion to correct his sentence. Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9 (stating that a court "may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law"). An appellate court reviews a district court's denial of a motion to correct a sentence for an abuse of discretion but applies de novo review in considering the district court's legal conclusions. Townsend v. State, 834 N.W.2d 736, 738 (Minn. 2013).
10. If a defendant's sentence is based on an incorrect criminal history score, it is considered an "illegal sentence" and "may be corrected at any time." State v. Brown, 937 N.W.2d 146, 157 (Minn.App. 2019) (quotation omitted). But "[o]nce a sentence has expired, the court no longer has jurisdiction to modify even what may be an unauthorized sentence." Martinek v. State, 678 N.W.2d 714, 718 (Minn.App. 2004); see also State v. Hannam, 792 N.W.2d 862, 864-65 (Minn.App. 2011) (concluding that because a defendant's sentence had expired, "this court, like the district court, ha[d] no authority to amend or modify the sentence" and dismissing the appeal). A defendant's sentence expires when the defendant has completed the term of imprisonment and any required supervised release. Hannam, 792 N.W.2d at 864-65.
11. Because Haakenstad's sentence expired before he moved the district court to recalculate his criminal history score, the district court did not have authority to modify the criminal history score or the sentence imposed. Thus, the district court did not err as a matter of law in taking no action on Haakenstad's motion.
12. We also note that, even assuming without deciding that the correct criminal history score was four, Haakenstad's sentence of 54 months was still a downward departure from the presumptive sentence prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. As calculated with a criminal history score of four, the presumptive sentence for second-degree drug possession was 88 months, with a presumptive range between 75 to 105 months. Minn. Sent'g Guidelines 4.A.
Haakenstad also makes several due process arguments on appeal, all of which rely on the premise that he received an illegal sentence. However, as noted, Haakenstad's sentence was below the presumptive range for a sentence calculated using a criminal history score of four. Thus, even if the wrong criminal history score was used at sentencing, Haakenstad's sentence was not "illegal." We accordingly do not address his due process arguments.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.