Merritt v. State

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Merritt v. State

369 N.W.2d 329, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 4257

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedJune 18, 1985

DocketNo. C7-85-421

StatusPublished

This text of 369 N.W.2d 329 (Merritt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Merritt v. State, 369 N.W.2d 329, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 4257 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY OPINION

POPOVICH, Chief Judge.

FACTS

Appellant William Wallace Merritt was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree in Hennepin County and was sentenced to a term of 43 months. Subsequently he was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree in Ramsey County and was given a 43 month sentence consecutive to the Hennepin County sentence. Appellant petitioned for post-conviction relief claiming there was no written reason filed to justify the consecutive sentence. The post-conviction court denied appellant’s requested relief stating that under Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.F. the court may use consecutive sentencing where defendant is convicted of different felonies for crimes against different persons. Appellant appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.

DECISION

Consecutive sentencing was authorized by the guidelines and its use did not constitute a departure requiring a departure report. Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.F.

Affirmed.

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

SUMMARY OPINION

POPOVICH, Chief Judge.

FACTS

Appellant William Wallace Merritt was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree in Hennepin County and was sentenced to a term of 43 months. Subsequently he was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree in Ramsey County and was given a 43 month sentence consecutive to the Hennepin County sentence. Appellant petitioned for post-conviction relief claiming there was no written reason filed to justify the consecutive sentence. The post-conviction court denied appellant’s requested relief stating that under Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.F. the court may use consecutive sentencing where defendant is convicted of different felonies for crimes against different persons. Appellant appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.

DECISION

Consecutive sentencing was authorized by the guidelines and its use did not constitute a departure requiring a departure report. Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.F.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 N.W.2d 329, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 4257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merritt-v-state-minnctapp-1985.