State v. Hardy

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Hardy

322 N.W.2d 334, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1673

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 27, 1982

DocketNo. 82-137

StatusPublished

This text of 322 N.W.2d 334 (State v. Hardy) 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. Hardy, 322 N.W.2d 334, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1673 (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, subd. 3 (Supp.1981). We affirm.

In 1979 petitioner was found guilty by a district court jury of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, aggravated robbery, and assault with a dangerous weapon, and was sentenced by the trial court to a prison term of 1 year and 1 day to 20 years for the sex offense. Those convictions were affirmed in State v. Hardy, 303 N.W.2d 57 (Minn.1981). Petitioner’s target release date is March 31, 1983.

Petitioner’s criminal history score at the time of sentencing would have been zero. Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree is a severity level VIII offense. The presumptive sentence for this offense by one with petitioner’s criminal history score is 43 months in prison. If petitioner were resen-tenced to the presumptive sentence, he apparently would be entitled to immediate release from prison.

As we stated in State v. Champion, 319 N.W.2d 21, 23 (Minn.1982), “[W]e 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.” Although petitioner presented evidence in support of his petition for resentencing, we do not believe that the postconviction court was compelled to find that petitioner’s early release from sentence would not present a danger to the public and would not be incompatible with the welfare of society.

Petitioner, who is now 21 years old, remains subject to the jurisdiction of the commissioner of corrections.¹

Affirmed.

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, subd. 3 (Supp.1981). We affirm.

In 1979 petitioner was found guilty by a district court jury of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, aggravated robbery, and assault with a dangerous weapon, and was sentenced by the trial court to a prison term of 1 year and 1 day to 20 years for the sex offense. Those convictions were affirmed in State v. Hardy, 303 N.W.2d 57 (Minn.1981). Petitioner’s target release date is March 31, 1983.

Petitioner’s criminal history score at the time of sentencing would have been zero. Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree is a severity level VIII offense. The presumptive sentence for this offense by one with petitioner’s criminal history score is 43 months in prison. If petitioner were resen-tenced to the presumptive sentence, he apparently would be entitled to immediate release from prison.

As we stated in State v. Champion, 319 N.W.2d 21, 23 (Minn.1982), “[W]e 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.” Although petitioner presented evidence in support of his petition for resentencing, we do not believe that the postconviction court was compelled to find that petitioner’s early release from sentence would not present a danger to the public and would not be incompatible with the welfare of society.

Petitioner, who is now 21 years old, remains subject to the jurisdiction of the commissioner of corrections.¹

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

322 N.W.2d 334, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hardy-minn-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack