State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Steven Paul Garcia, Appellant.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1996).

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C4-97-1337

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Steven Paul Garcia,

Appellant.

 Filed October 21, 1997

 Affirmed and remanded

 Short, Judge

Hennepin County District Court

File No. 9537164

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent)

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael J. Richardson, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Steven P. Russett, Assistant Public Defender, 875 Summit Avenue, LEC 304, St. Paul, MN 55105 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Parker, Judge, and Crippen, Judge.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 SHORT, Judge

Steven Paul Garcia pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.27, 609.342, subd.1(e)(i) (1996). The trial court sentenced Garcia to an 81-month prison term and imposed a $500 fine. Less than two years after sentencing Garcia, the sentencing court amended its order to include a 10 year-conditional release term. On appeal, Garcia argues the trial court did not have the authority to impose this additional term and he should be permitted to withdraw his plea. We affirm, but remand for further proceedings on the plea agreement.

  D E C I S I O N

Trial courts are permitted to correct an unauthorized sentence at any time. Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9; see also Bangert v. State, 282 N.W.2d 540, 547 (Minn. 1979) (concluding defendant should not be allowed to benefit by sentencing court's error in its application of law). However, a defendant has a legitimate expectation of finality in a sentence once it is pronounced. State v. Walsh, 456 N.W.2d 442, 444 (Minn. App. 1990).

Garcia argues the trial court abused its discretion by adding the ten-year conditional release term to his sentence. We disagree. The record demonstrates: (1) Garcia was convicted under a statute which requires imposition of a conditional release term, (2) in its original sentence, the sentencing court failed to impose this mandatory conditional release term, and (3) less than two years after imposing its original sentence, the sentencing court imposed the conditional release term to correct its original sentence. See Minn. Stat. § 609.346, subd. 5 (1996) (mandating conditional release term for persons convicted under Minn. Stat. § 609.343); Bangert, 282 N.W.2d at 547 (holding an original sentence not authorized by law when mandatory statutory language specifically prohibited sentence imposed on defendant); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.44 subd. 16 (1996) ("shall" is mandatory). Because the original sentence was contrary to the statutorily mandated sentence, the sentencing court's subsequent imposition of the mandatory conditional release term was proper.

Garcia also argues he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because the subsequent imposition of the conditional release term materially altered an essential term, the potential length of incarceration, of his plea agreement. The State agrees Garcia should be allowed to reconsider his guilty plea. Because the decision to allow Garcia to withdraw his guilty plea is independently justifiable on the ground of mutual mistake, we remand this issue to the trial court for further proceedings. See State v. DeZeler, 427 N.W.2d 231, 235 (Minn. 1988) (holding decision to allow defendant to withdraw guilty plea can be independently justified on ground of mutual mistake).

  Affirmed and remanded.