may not be cited except as provided by
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
David Allen Pawielski,
Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, 102 State Capitol, St. Paul, MN 55155 (for respondent)
Alan L. Mitchell, St. Louis County Attorney, John E. DeSanto, Assistant County Attorney, St. Louis County Courthouse, 100 North Fifth Avenue West, #501, Duluth, MN 55802-1298 (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Scott G. Swanson, Assistant Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Crippen, Judge, and Peterson, Judge.
This appeal raises the single issue of whether a Wisconsin withheld sentence is a stay of adjudication or a stay of imposition of sentence for purposes of computing a criminal history score in sentencing a Minnesota crime. We affirm the district court's assessment of the withheld sentence as a conviction with a stay of imposition.
Pawielski appeals his sentence, contending that his criminal history score was erroneously calculated as three rather than two because the district court incorrectly assessed a felony point for a Wisconsin offense. For the Wisconsin offense, operating a motor vehicle without consent, Pawielski received a withheld sentence of six months incarceration and three years probation.
The state provided the sentencing judge with information from the Wisconsin Department of Probation and Parole that a withheld sentence results in a conviction. The record contains no evidence that contradicts this submission. The evidence is uncontroverted that Pawielski was on probation for a Wisconsin conviction on which the imposition of sentence was stayed, but not the adjudication. This disposition constitutes a conviction. See Strom, 430 N.W.2d at 864. The Minnesota sentencing court properly assessed one point for the Wisconsin offense and properly calculated Pawielski's criminal history score as three rather than two.