Milton K. Sanders, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion to correct a sentence under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, because appellant’s consecutive sentences were authorized by law. 2. Any error in the district court’s failure to pronounce appellant’s criminal history score at sentencing was harmless. Affirmed. Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
1Opinion of the Court
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A24-1757 Hennepin County Procaccini, J. Took no part, Gaïtas, J. Milton K. Sanders, Appellant, vs. Filed: July 2, 2025 Office of Appellate Courts State of Minnesota, Respondent. ________________________ Milton K. Sanders, Moose Lake, Minnesota, pro se. Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Mark V. Griffin, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent. ________________________ SYLLABUS 1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion to…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- State v. KnafflaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Leake v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- State v. SorensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- State v. WhittakerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.