County District Court File No. 70-CR-13-8328
Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Ronald
Hocevar, Scott County Attorney, Todd P. Zettler, Assistant
County Attorney, Shakopee, Minnesota (for respondent)
Charles F. Clippert, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Worke,
Judge; and Smith, Tracy M., Judge.
sentence for an out-of-state conviction that results in the
out-of-state sentencing court imposing a probationary term
but reserving the right to vacate the stay and impose a
sentence is the equivalent of a stay of imposition for
purposes of calculating the defendant's criminal-history
score under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.
challenges the denial of his motion to correct his sentence
under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, arguing that his
sentence is based on an incorrect criminal-history score.
Because the district court properly exercised its discretion
by including an out-of-state conviction when calculating
appellant's criminal-history score, we affirm.
April 18, 2013, appellant Justin Kenyatta Watson, Stephen
Moore, and Michael Jarmon traveled to an apartment in
Shakopee to rob an individual of marijuana. Jarmon brought a
handgun. When they entered the apartment, Jarmon pointed the
handgun at the individuals inside, and Moore ordered them to
lie down. Moore then located the marijuana, and Watson took a
wallet from M.P., one of the occupants of the apartment. As
they fled the apartment, Jarmon fired several gunshots. One
of the shots struck and killed M.P.
State of Minnesota charged Watson with second-degree murder,
first-degree aggravated robbery, and two counts of
second-degree assault. On July 12, 2013, Watson pleaded
guilty to aiding and abetting second-degree unintentional
murder. The district court sentenced Watson to 216 months in
prison. On February 20, 2018, Watson moved to correct his
sentence, arguing that his sentence is based on an incorrect
criminal-history score. The district court denied the motion.
This appeal follows.
district court abuse its discretion in calculating