State of Minnesota v. Antonio Devell Johnson

Summary

The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the State did not meet its burden to establish the validity of three out-of-state convictions and that the defendant was the person involved when it relied solely on a presentence investigation report that did not satisfy Minnesota Rule of Evidence 1005. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by including those convictions in Antonio Devell Johnson’s criminal-history score. The court reversed and remanded to allow the State to further develop the sentencing record.

Holdings

1. A presentence investigation report that does not satisfy Minnesota Rule of Evidence 1005 does not, by itself, establish the validity of out-of-state convictions or that the defendant was the person involved for purposes of calculating a criminal-history score.
2. The district court abused its discretion by including all three Illinois convictions in Johnson's criminal-history score because the State relied solely on an inadequate PSI and failed to establish the facts necessary to support their inclusion.
3. Johnson was not entitled to a mandated bottom-of-the-box sentence; the case was remanded to allow the State to further develop the sentencing record and the district court to make a proper determination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State satisfied its burden of establishing the validity of three out-of-state convictions and that Johnson was the person involved by relying solely on the presentence investigation report.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by including the three Illinois convictions in Johnson's criminal-history score.
3. Whether the case should be remanded for resentencing at the bottom of the corrected presumptive sentencing range.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded