Edstrom v. State

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Edstrom v. State

326 N.W.2d 10, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1831

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 12, 1982

Docket82-959

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 326 N.W.2d 10 (Edstrom v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edstrom v. State, 326 N.W.2d 10, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1831 (Mich. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by Norman A. Edstrom, age 36, from an order of the Anoka County District Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief in the form of resentencing according to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 3 (Supp.1981). We affirm.

Pursuant to a guilty plea, petitioner was convicted in 1975 of the March 1975 aggravated rape of a young woman. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison, the maximum permitted for the crime of aggravated rape. Petitioner’s sentence will expire in March of 1995. That is also his current release date.

In 1981 petitioner filed a petition seeking postconviction relief in the form of resen-tencing according to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied that petition. Petitioner concedes on appeal that the district court was justified in denying that petition.

However, petitioner raises a new issue, specifically, whether his 30-year sentence should be reduced to 20 years, which is the maximum permitted for criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. Minn.Stat. § 609.342 (1980). In support of this argument, petitioner cites State v. Coolidge, 282 N.W.2d 511 (Minn.1979). Normally, we would not consider this issue because it was not clearly raised in the trial court. However, in the interest of judicial economy, we address the issue and hold that Coolidge does not apply. In Coolidge, we ruled that a statute mitigating punishment is to be applied to acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached, at least absent a contrary statement of intent by the legislature. In this case the legislature has clearly indicated its intent that the criminal sexual conduct statutes have no effect on crimes committed before the effective date of the act, August 1, 1975. Minn.Stat. § 609.351 (1980). The conduct underlying petitioner’s aggravated rape conviction occurred in March of 1975.

*11 Petitioner remains subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Corrections.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by Norman A. Edstrom, age 36, from an order of the Anoka County District Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief in the form of resentencing according to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 3 (Supp.1981). We affirm.

Pursuant to a guilty plea, petitioner was convicted in 1975 of the March 1975 aggravated rape of a young woman. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison, the maximum permitted for the crime of aggravated rape. Petitioner’s sentence will expire in March of 1995. That is also his current release date.

In 1981 petitioner filed a petition seeking postconviction relief in the form of resen-tencing according to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied that petition. Petitioner concedes on appeal that the district court was justified in denying that petition.

However, petitioner raises a new issue, specifically, whether his 30-year sentence should be reduced to 20 years, which is the maximum permitted for criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. Minn.Stat. § 609.342 (1980). In support of this argument, petitioner cites State v. Coolidge, 282 N.W.2d 511 (Minn.1979). Normally, we would not consider this issue because it was not clearly raised in the trial court. However, in the interest of judicial economy, we address the issue and hold that Coolidge does not apply. In Coolidge, we ruled that a statute mitigating punishment is to be applied to acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached, at least absent a contrary statement of intent by the legislature. In this case the legislature has clearly indicated its intent that the criminal sexual conduct statutes have no effect on crimes committed before the effective date of the act, August 1, 1975. Minn.Stat. § 609.351 (1980). The conduct underlying petitioner’s aggravated rape conviction occurred in March of 1975.

*11 Petitioner remains subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Corrections.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 N.W.2d 10, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edstrom-v-state-minn-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack