Standslast v. State

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Standslast v. State

328 N.W.2d 728, 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1178

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 14, 1983

DocketNo. 82-412

StatusPublished

This text of 328 N.W.2d 728 (Standslast 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

Standslast v. State, 328 N.W.2d 728, 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1178 (Mich. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by Thomas Standslast, age 36, from an order of the Cass 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.

Petitioner was convicted in 1971 of murder in the second degree and was sentenced to a maximum prison term of 40 years. He has been released on parole a number of times but on .each occasion parole was revoked. Petitioner’s sentence will expire in March of 1999.

Murder in the second degree is a severity level X offense. If the Sentencing Guidelines had been in effect at the time of the offense, petitioner’s criminal history score at the time of sentencing would have been one. The presumptive sentence for a severity level X offense by a person with a criminal history score of one is 140 (133-147) months in prison. If petitioner were resentenced to the presumptive sentence he would be entitled to immediate release from prison.

In State v. Champion, 319 N.W.2d 21, 23 (Minn.1982), we stated that “we generally will not interfere with the postconviction court’s refusal to make the finding that is prerequisite to resentencing, at least in cases in which the petitioner is serving a sentence for a violent offense or has a record suggesting that he is likely to engage in criminal conduct after his release.” Petitioner is a violent offender with a record of recidivism who also has failed on parole a number of times. Petitioner had the burden of overcoming the negative factors and proving that his early release from sentence would not endanger the public and would not be incompatible with the welfare of society. The district court concluded that petitioner failed to meet this burden, and we agree.

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 Thomas Standslast, age 36, from an order of the Cass 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.

Petitioner was convicted in 1971 of murder in the second degree and was sentenced to a maximum prison term of 40 years. He has been released on parole a number of times but on .each occasion parole was revoked. Petitioner’s sentence will expire in March of 1999.

Murder in the second degree is a severity level X offense. If the Sentencing Guidelines had been in effect at the time of the offense, petitioner’s criminal history score at the time of sentencing would have been one. The presumptive sentence for a severity level X offense by a person with a criminal history score of one is 140 (133-147) months in prison. If petitioner were resentenced to the presumptive sentence he would be entitled to immediate release from prison.

In State v. Champion, 319 N.W.2d 21, 23 (Minn.1982), we stated that “we generally will not interfere with the postconviction court’s refusal to make the finding that is prerequisite to resentencing, at least in cases in which the petitioner is serving a sentence for a violent offense or has a record suggesting that he is likely to engage in criminal conduct after his release.” Petitioner is a violent offender with a record of recidivism who also has failed on parole a number of times. Petitioner had the burden of overcoming the negative factors and proving that his early release from sentence would not endanger the public and would not be incompatible with the welfare of society. The district court concluded that petitioner failed to meet this burden, and we agree.

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

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 N.W.2d 728, 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/standslast-v-state-minn-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack