Harmless Error for Unannounced Criminal History Scores and Reaffirmation of the Multiple‑Victim Exception in Consecutive Sentencing — Sanders v. State (Minn. 2025)

Harmless Error for Unannounced Criminal History Scores and Reaffirmation of the Multiple‑Victim Exception in Consecutive Sentencing — Sanders v. State (Minn. 2025)

Introduction

In Milton K. Sanders v. State of Minnesota, 23 N.W.3d 86 (Minn. 2025), the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a motion to correct sentence under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9. The case revisits a 1997 Minneapolis shooting in which Sanders killed a 16‑year‑old bystander and injured two others. A jury found him guilty of first‑degree murder and two counts of attempted first‑degree murder. The district court imposed a life sentence for the murder and two consecutive 180‑month sentences for the attempted murder counts. The Supreme Court had previously affirmed those sentences in 1999.

In 2024, Sanders filed a Rule 27.03 motion to correct his sentence, arguing that his consecutive sentences unfairly exaggerated the criminality of his conduct and that the court misapplied his criminal history score (CHS) by failing to use a score of zero when imposing permissive consecutive sentences. The district court rejected the motion on the merits. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the “unfair exaggeration” claim was barred by the law‑of‑the‑case doctrine and, even on the merits, failed in light of the multiple‑victim exception to Minnesota Statutes section 609.035. The Court further held that any failure to pronounce the CHS at sentencing was harmless because the life sentence is mandatory, and the 180‑month consecutive terms match the presumptive range for a zero CHS.

The opinion clarifies two practical points: (1) the enduring force of the multiple‑victim exception in authorizing consecutive sentences arising from a single behavioral incident, and (2) a straightforward harmless‑error framework for unannounced CHS where the sentence imposed is consistent with the guidelines’ zero‑CHS requirement for permissive consecutive sentencing.

Summary of the Opinion

  • The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Sanders’s Rule 27.03 motion.
  • Unfair‑exaggeration challenge:
    • Barred by the law‑of‑the‑case doctrine because the Supreme Court rejected the same claim on direct appeal in 1999.
    • Fails on the merits given the multiple‑victim exception to section 609.035 and Minnesota precedent upholding consecutive sentences in violent multi‑victim cases.
  • Criminal history score challenge:
    • Even if the district court failed to pronounce the CHS, the error was harmless.
    • The life sentence for first‑degree murder is mandatory and unaffected by CHS.
    • The 180‑month consecutive sentences for attempted first‑degree murder align with the presumptive “middle‑of‑the‑box” for a zero CHS under the 1997 guidelines and are below the range for a CHS of one, allowing the Court to presume compliance with the zero‑CHS rule for permissive consecutive sentencing.
  • Result: Affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

The opinion draws on longstanding Minnesota doctrine governing sentencing structure, postconviction procedure, and standards of review:

  • Rule 27.03, subd. 9 (Minn. R. Crim. P.): Allows a court to correct at any time a sentence “not authorized by law.” The standard of review for denial is abuse of discretion. See Townsend v. State, 867 N.W.2d 497, 500 (Minn. 2015); Andersen v. State, 913 N.W.2d 417, 422 (Minn. 2018).
  • Definition of “not authorized by law”: “Contrary to law or applicable statutes.” Johnson v. State, 992 N.W.2d 389, 391 (Minn. 2023) (quoting State v. Schnagl, 859 N.W.2d 297, 301 (Minn. 2015)).
  • Law‑of‑the‑case: Bars relitigation of issues denied previously in the same case, including in Rule 27 motions. Smith v. State, 974 N.W.2d 576, 581–82 (Minn. 2022).
  • Single behavioral incident rule and multiple‑victim exception:
    • General rule: No multiple punishments for offenses in a single behavioral incident. Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd. 1; State v. Norregaard, 384 N.W.2d 449 (Minn. 1986); State v. Ferguson, 808 N.W.2d 586, 589 (Minn. 2012).
    • Exception: Multiple sentences allowed when multiple victims are affected and sentences do not unfairly exaggerate criminality. State v. Whittaker, 568 N.W.2d 440, 453 (Minn. 1997); State v. Skipintheday, 717 N.W.2d 423, 426 (Minn. 2006); rationale in State ex rel. Stangvik v. Tahash, 161 N.W.2d 667, 672 (Minn. 1968).
    • Exemplars upholding consecutive sentences in multi‑victim violent cases: State v. Cruz‑Ramirez, 771 N.W.2d 497, 511–12 (Minn. 2009) (three attempted murders); State v. McInnis, 962 N.W.2d 874, 891–94 (Minn. 2021) (two murders); and correcting understatement via concurrent terms: State v. Warren, 592 N.W.2d 440, 452 (Minn. 1999).
  • Permissive consecutive sentencing: Not a departure; no departure findings required. Bilbro v. State, 927 N.W.2d 8, 14 (Minn. 2019). The 1997 and current guidelines authorize permissive consecutive sentencing for multiple current crimes against persons, including first‑degree murder and attempted first‑degree murder. Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F (1997); 2.F.2.a(1)(ii) (2024).
  • Unfair exaggeration benchmark: Assessed by reference to sentences for similar offenses. State v. Alger, 941 N.W.2d 396, 403 (Minn. 2020) (quoting Carpenter v. State, 674 N.W.2d 184, 189 (Minn. 2004)).
  • Harmless error: A sentencing error may be harmless when it does not affect a mandatory term. Greer v. State, 973 N.W.2d 918, 924 (Minn. 2022).
  • Appellate scope: Issues not addressed by the district court generally will not be considered on appeal. State v. Sorenson, 441 N.W.2d 455, 457 (Minn. 1989).

The Court also traces Sanders’s postconviction history, including decisions applying the Knaffla bar and the statutory time bar, without relying on them to resolve the 2024 Rule 27.03 motion.

Legal Reasoning

1) Unfair exaggeration and the multiple‑victim exception

The Court first applies the law‑of‑the‑case doctrine. Sanders previously argued on direct appeal that his life sentence plus two consecutive 180‑month sentences unfairly exaggerated his criminality. The Court rejected that claim in 1999. Because the current Rule 27.03 motion advances the identical argument, law‑of‑the‑case bars relitigation.

The Court proceeds to the merits and reaffirms the multiple‑victim exception to section 609.035. When a single behavioral incident harms multiple victims, a district court may impose multiple sentences so long as the aggregate punishment does not unfairly exaggerate criminality. In violent multi‑victim cases, Minnesota precedent consistently affirms consecutive sentencing and, in some instances, corrects concurrent terms that understate criminality. Sanders’s conduct—killing one victim and wounding two others—falls squarely within this line of cases. Given these comparators, his aggregate sentence does not exaggerate his criminality. The Court also clarifies that permissive consecutive sentences are not upward dispositional departures and thus do not require departure findings or a Blakely jury.

2) Criminal history score and harmless error

Under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, when a court imposes consecutive sentences for multiple current offenses, it must use a criminal history score of zero (or the statutory minimum, if higher) to determine the presumptive sentence for each offense after the first. Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F (1997); 2.F.2.b (2024). Sanders argued that the district court failed to use a zero CHS and failed to pronounce his CHS at sentencing.

The Court’s analysis proceeds in two steps:

  • Mandatory life sentence unaffected: CHS is irrelevant to first‑degree murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence. Any error regarding CHS could not affect that term, rendering any omission harmless as to the life sentence.
  • Consecutive attempted murder terms consistent with zero CHS: The 180‑month terms for attempted first‑degree murder align with the “middle‑of‑the‑box” presumptive sentence for a zero CHS under the 1997 guidelines (176–184 months; midpoint 180). They are also below the range for a CHS of one (186–194 months). From this alignment, the Court “confidently presumes” the district court used the required zero CHS, even though the CHS was not expressly pronounced. Consequently, any failure to announce the CHS was harmless.

The opinion thus provides a practical template for harmless‑error review when the sentencing transcript is silent on CHS but the imposed sentence unambiguously matches the zero‑CHS presumptive range mandated for permissive consecutive sentencing.

Impact and Significance

  • Reinforced boundaries on Rule 27.03 motions: Rule 27.03 remains a narrow vehicle limited to sentences “not authorized by law,” not a means to relitigate previously rejected appellate arguments. The law‑of‑the‑case doctrine will bar re‑raising “unfair exaggeration” challenges decided on direct appeal.
  • Consecutive sentencing in multiple‑victim cases: The decision solidifies that consecutive sentencing remains presumptively appropriate and authorized for violent offenses involving multiple victims, provided the aggregate punishment is consistent with sentences imposed in comparable cases. Defense arguments framed as “unfair exaggeration” face a steep climb in this context.
  • Harmless error for unannounced CHS: The Court’s approach provides a clear, administrable standard. Where the record shows imposed consecutive terms match the zero‑CHS presumptive range, appellate courts can presume compliance without remand. This may limit successful collateral challenges premised solely on a failure to pronounce CHS, absent record evidence that the wrong CHS actually drove a longer sentence.
  • No departure/Blakely findings for permissive consecutive sentences: By reaffirming that permissive consecutive sentencing is not a departure, the Court implicitly confirms that Blakely fact‑finding is not triggered merely by the decision to run eligible sentences consecutively.
  • Practice guidance for trial courts: Although the omission was harmless here, district courts should still expressly state the CHS to avoid litigation and to create a clean record, especially in cases with overlapping presumptive ranges where inference may be less certain.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Rule 27.03, subd. 9 (“sentence not authorized by law”): A procedural rule allowing sentencing courts to correct, at any time, only those sentences that are contrary to law or statute (e.g., exceeding statutory maximums, ignoring mandatory minimums, or contravening guideline directives with legal force). It is not a vehicle to reargue the sufficiency of evidence or trial errors.
  • Law‑of‑the‑case: Once an appellate court decides a legal issue in a case, the same parties generally cannot relitigate that issue in later stages of the same case. For sentencing, a defendant cannot re‑raise an “unfair exaggeration” claim previously rejected on direct appeal through a later 27.03 motion.
  • Section 609.035 and the multiple‑victim exception:
    • Baseline rule: A defendant gets only one punishment for crimes arising out of a single behavioral incident.
    • Exception: If multiple victims are harmed, courts may impose multiple sentences (and run them consecutively), so long as the aggregate does not unfairly exaggerate the defendant’s criminality. This aligns punishment with culpability when harm is multiplied across victims.
  • Permissive consecutive sentencing: The guidelines authorize, but do not require, consecutive sentencing for multiple current crimes against persons. Because it is “permissive,” choosing to run sentences consecutively is not a departure and requires no special findings.
  • Criminal history score (CHS) in consecutive sentencing: For each count after the first when sentences are run consecutively, the guidelines require using a CHS of zero (or a statutory minimum if higher) to compute the presumptive term. This prevents stacking enhanced terms based on prior criminality across multiple consecutive counts for the same incident.
  • “Middle‑of‑the‑box”: Each cell in the sentencing grid has a presumptive range. The midpoint is the “middle‑of‑the‑box,” treated as the standard presumptive term absent reasons to go up or down within the range.
  • Harmless error: An error that does not affect the outcome does not warrant reversal. At sentencing, if a life term is mandatory or the imposed term clearly matches the correct presumptive range, an omission like failing to pronounce CHS will not justify relief.

Conclusion

Sanders v. State reaffirms two bedrock principles of Minnesota sentencing law. First, consecutive sentencing for violent offenses involving multiple victims is authorized and commonly upheld, and “unfair exaggeration” challenges will be measured against a robust body of comparator cases that frequently approve such structures. Second, the Court clarifies a pragmatic harmless‑error approach to unannounced criminal history scores in permissive consecutive settings: when the record shows the imposed terms align with the required zero‑CHS presumptives, the omission does not undermine the sentence.

The decision also underscores procedural guardrails: Rule 27.03 motions are not substitutes for successive appeals, and law‑of‑the‑case will foreclose recycled claims. For practitioners, the opinion is a reminder to build clear sentencing records—explicitly pronouncing CHS and guideline bases—while also providing a safety valve when the record plainly demonstrates guideline compliance. In the broader landscape, Sanders strengthens the coherence of Minnesota’s sentencing jurisprudence by aligning doctrine, guidelines, and practical administration in multi‑victim violent crime cases.

Case Context

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court; Decided without oral argument; Gaïtas, J., took no part. Author: Procaccini, J. Filed: July 2, 2025. Citation: 23 N.W.3d 86. Parties: Appellant Milton K. Sanders, pro se; Respondent State of Minnesota (Keith Ellison, Attorney General; Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney; Mark V. Griffin, Assistant County Attorney).

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Comments