SUBJECT: New Training Update: Out-of-State Convictions — A Sentencing Trap You Can’t Ignore
Dear Colleagues,
I’m sharing a new Martine Law Training Update addressing a deceptively common — and highly consequential — sentencing issue: how out-of-state convictions may (and may not) be used when calculating a defendant’s criminal history score.
In State v. Johnson (Minn. App. Jan. 20, 2026), the Court of Appeals makes clear that relying on a PSI alone to establish out-of-state convictions is a legal landmine. The case also delivers a critical lesson with real-world consequences: whether defense counsel objected at sentencing directly affected the remedy on appeal — including whether the State got a second chance to fix the record.
This update breaks down:
- What Minn. R. Evid. 1005 requires (and what it doesn’t),
- Why sentencing is an evidentiary determination, not a ministerial step,
- How a single objection — or silence — can preserve or destroy appellate leverage,
- Practical best practices for prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges.
If you handle felony sentencing, review PSIs, advise clients at plea hearings, or preside over criminal cases, this is essential reading. I encourage you to read it, download it, and share it with colleagues who may not realize how high the stakes are until it’s too late.
The link to the full update is below.
Warm regards,
Alan F. Pendleton
Of Counsel, Martine Law Firm
Director of Mentorship and Education
Former Minnesota District Court Judge
MINNESOTA JUDICIAL TRAINING & EDUCATION BLOG 