By Brett Corson
Preston, Minn.
Chip! Chip! Chip! That is the sound of the subtle but constant attack by State officials on public safety, rule of law, and accountability. The most recent attack is the Sentencing Guidelines Commission (“SGC”) proposal to eliminate Hernandizing multiple felony offenses. This means that offenders being sentenced on the same day for multiple felony convictions will be treated like a first-time offender with one felony conviction. Recently, the look back period for calculating felony criminal history points was reduced from 15 years to 10 years. In a recent Fillmore County case, this change reduced a defendant’s criminal history score from 7 points to 2 points. Chip! Chip! Crack! How about the legislative change that reduced a defendant’s probationary time for most felonies from 10 or 15 years to only 5 years? This was a significant reduction which now hinders probation’s ability to monitor a convicted criminal’s sustained compliance with the terms of his sentence. Similarly, the custody status point which previously added one or one-half criminal history point for crimes committed while on probation or parole was rendered meaningless. As of August 1, 2026, the Sentencing Guidelines Commission has removed custody status and prior juvenile adjudications entirely from calculating an offender’s criminal history score. An offender’s criminal history score is very important. Reducing the criminal history score significantly reduces the sentence that can be imposed by the Court. Chip! Chip! Crumble!
State leaders also enacted the Minnesota Rehabilitation and Reinvestment Act (MRRA) which allows felony offenders to significantly reduce (up to 50%) their prison time in certain cases. Shouldn’t criminals serve the entire sentence that was agreed upon by the prosecutor, or which was executed by the Court? Minnesota has also closed or failed to maintain prisons, made it more difficult to collect restitution to reimburse victims, made it more difficult to violate a defendant’s probation, and ultimately made it more difficult to hold defendants accountable. What is a criminal defendant’s incentive to change if there are few, if any, consequences? Chip! Chip! Crash! The steady chipping away at the foundations of public safety and accountability cannot continue without rendering the criminal justice system meaningless.
Certainly, we need to treat criminal defendants with respect and dignity. Certainly, we need to help people who have chemical dependency issues, mental health issues, and those who want to make positive changes in their life. In Minnesota, we make every effort to try and help people get “back on track.” However, if an individual continues to commit crimes, won’t make positive changes, and continues to hurt others, shouldn’t there be meaningful and effective consequences? We need laws and sentencing guidelines which will once again deter crime, restore accountability, protect victims, and promote the rule of law. Will we stand by and let the foundations of our criminal justice system be chipped away at until it crashes down?
Leave a Reply