Adrian Dominic Riley v. State of Minnesota

Summary

The court held that Riley’s filing was properly treated as a motion to correct an unlawful sentence under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.03, subdivision 9, rather than as a time-barred postconviction petition, so the district court had jurisdiction to consider it. The court nevertheless affirmed because Riley’s mandatory life sentences for first-degree murder were not unlawful: the PSI requirement and sentencing guidelines did not govern those sentences, and Riley failed to show that his consecutive sentences violated law. The court also held that the prosecutor-initiated sentence-adjustment statute provided no relief because the State had not commenced a proceeding under it.