Linda McBrier, a staff member with the Sentencing Guidelines Commission, walked practitioners through policy 2b2 on applying custody status to criminal-history scoring during a virtual lunch-and-learn, outlining recent court and legislative developments and how to use the electronic worksheet system (EWS). "Robinette was a published case," McBrier said, explaining the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision meant the 2019 commission changes to decay periods and custody-status types apply to defendants who were pending sentencing when the rules went into effect.

Why it matters: custody status can change a presumptive sentence. McBrier said the commission’s 2019 adjustments lowered some criminal-history scores and changed which custody statuses attach to priors. Separately, a legislature-driven change that took effect July 1, 2023, reduced the felony-duration minimum from 366 days to 365 days; McBrier cautioned that whether a prior was sentenced before or after that change affects whether it counts as a felony or a gross misdemeanor for criminal-history purposes.

How the rules are applied: staff stressed that practitioners must look to the sentencing date and the relevant guidelines manual (guidelines run Aug. 1 to July 31) or rely on the EWS embedded guidance for cross‑book issues. McBrier explained the difference between an imposed sentence and a stay of imposition, and said custody status follows the level of the offense tied to the stay: "It's called the custody status enhancement, meaning no custody, no enhancement," she said. When an appropriate custody value exists and a defendant’s total criminal-history score is 7 or more, a single 3-month enhancement is added to the presumptive term and its lower and upper ranges, subject to statutory maximums: "You get the 3 months," McBrier said.

Rounding and special cases: McBrier described a staff-rounding issue that produced half-point custody values in some EWS worksheets; she cited the unpublished State v. Ubanks decision and the then-pending Boganovich matter as context for why the practice was being treated cautiously. She also reviewed how out-of-state priors, stay-of-adjudication custody (including the impact of the Woolridge Carter decision), conditional release, release pending sentencing, confinement, escape, and extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ) entries are handled, and noted some misdemeanor and traffic offenses are categorically ineligible for custody status.

Waiver and ineligibility: McBrier summarized the 2019 commission policy on waiving a custody point, which allows a defendant to ask a judge to waive the custody point but is discretionary and subject to ineligibility criteria. Waiver cannot be used if the current offense or prior is on an ineligible list (for example, the commission’s severe-violent list or high-severity items); staff do not decide case-level waiver eligibility.

Practical guidance and resources: presenters urged practitioners to add explanatory comments to worksheets to avoid unnecessary returns, to indicate all custody statuses when multiple priors may qualify (EWS will apply the greater half/full rule), and to use Appendix 4 (the statute-derived targeted misdemeanors list) when considering misdemeanor custody. They pointed attendees to mn.gov/sentencing-guidelines for manuals, archived trainings and to the EWS for embedded guidance. The session's CLE code (pending) and plans to post the recording online were also announced.

Next steps: the presenters said further trainings will cover 2b3–2b7 (with emphasis on out-of-state offenses) and reminded attendees the next lunch-and-learn is scheduled for Jan. 15, 2026.