State v. Daby

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Daby

319 N.W.2d 11, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1551

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 10, 1982

DocketNo. 82-138

StatusPublished

This text of 319 N.W.2d 11 (State v. Daby) 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

State v. Daby, 319 N.W.2d 11, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1551 (Mich. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for postconviction relief in the form of resentencing according to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 590.01 (1980), amended by Act of June 1, 1981, eh. 366, § 1, 1981 Minn.Laws 2355, 2356. We affirm.

Petitioner was convicted in St. Louis County District Court in 1969 of aggravated rape, Minn.Stat. § 609.291 (1969), for forcing a 12-year-old girl at knifepoint into a wooded area in broad daylight and sexually assaulting her. We affirmed in State v. Daby, 293 Minn. 179, 197 N.W.2d 670 (1972). Petitioner has twice been released on parole from his 30-year prison term. In 1974, while on parole, he committed similar offenses in St. Paul against two girls, one age 10 and one age 11. For those acts he was convicted of two counts of indecent liberties, Minn.Stat. § 609.296 (1974), and received a 7-year prison term, to run consecutively with the prior 30-year term, on which [12]*12parole was revoked. State v. Daby, 260 N.W.2d 470 (Minn.1977).¹ In 1978, petitioner was again released on parole but his parole was revoked after he absconded from the residential treatment program in which he was required to participate.

Petitioner apparently established at the postconviction hearing that he has been, for the most part, a model prisoner, but the district court concluded that petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that his early release from the 30-year prison sentence would not present a danger to the public and would not be incompatible with the welfare of society. Smith v. State, 317 N.W.2d 366 (Minn.1982). Such a finding is a prerequisite to resentencing pursuant to the amendment to Minn.Stat. § 590.01. Our examination of the entire record on appeal satisfies us that the district court was justified in so concluding.

Affirmed.

WAHL, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for postconviction relief in the form of resentencing according to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 590.01 (1980), amended by Act of June 1, 1981, eh. 366, § 1, 1981 Minn.Laws 2355, 2356. We affirm.

Petitioner was convicted in St. Louis County District Court in 1969 of aggravated rape, Minn.Stat. § 609.291 (1969), for forcing a 12-year-old girl at knifepoint into a wooded area in broad daylight and sexually assaulting her. We affirmed in State v. Daby, 293 Minn. 179, 197 N.W.2d 670 (1972). Petitioner has twice been released on parole from his 30-year prison term. In 1974, while on parole, he committed similar offenses in St. Paul against two girls, one age 10 and one age 11. For those acts he was convicted of two counts of indecent liberties, Minn.Stat. § 609.296 (1974), and received a 7-year prison term, to run consecutively with the prior 30-year term, on which [12]*12parole was revoked. State v. Daby, 260 N.W.2d 470 (Minn.1977).¹ In 1978, petitioner was again released on parole but his parole was revoked after he absconded from the residential treatment program in which he was required to participate.

Petitioner apparently established at the postconviction hearing that he has been, for the most part, a model prisoner, but the district court concluded that petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that his early release from the 30-year prison sentence would not present a danger to the public and would not be incompatible with the welfare of society. Smith v. State, 317 N.W.2d 366 (Minn.1982). Such a finding is a prerequisite to resentencing pursuant to the amendment to Minn.Stat. § 590.01. Our examination of the entire record on appeal satisfies us that the district court was justified in so concluding.

Affirmed.

WAHL, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

319 N.W.2d 11, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-daby-minn-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack