State v. Hendrickson

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

State v. Hendrickson

406 N.W.2d 631, 1987 Minn. App. LEXIS 4456

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedJune 9, 1987

DocketC7-87-682

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 406 N.W.2d 631 (State v. Hendrickson) 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

State v. Hendrickson, 406 N.W.2d 631, 1987 Minn. App. LEXIS 4456 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

EDWARD MULALLY, Judge.

On December 5, 1986, appellant Stanley Hendrickson pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1 (1986), for the sexual abuse of two young boys in separate incidents. One of the boys was 9 years old, the other was 11. The trial court sentenced appellant to two consecutive sentences of 60 and 41 months imprisonment. At the same time the trial court revoked a stay of imposition which had been granted in regard to appellant’s prior conviction in 1981 for criminal sexual conduct in the second degree and imposed a concurrent 21-month sentence for that offense. In this appeal appellant challenges the consecutive nature of his sentences.

DECISION

Appellant acknowledges that consecutive sentencing did not constitute a departure under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.F. The decision to impose consecutive sentencing was a discretionary determination by the court. State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn.1982); Massey v. State, 352 N.W.2d 487, 489 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 16, 1984). Appellant asserts the sentence unfairly exaggerates the criminality of his conduct. We disagree. The sentence was not an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

EDWARD MULALLY, Judge.

On December 5, 1986, appellant Stanley Hendrickson pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1 (1986), for the sexual abuse of two young boys in separate incidents. One of the boys was 9 years old, the other was 11. The trial court sentenced appellant to two consecutive sentences of 60 and 41 months imprisonment. At the same time the trial court revoked a stay of imposition which had been granted in regard to appellant’s prior conviction in 1981 for criminal sexual conduct in the second degree and imposed a concurrent 21-month sentence for that offense. In this appeal appellant challenges the consecutive nature of his sentences.

DECISION

Appellant acknowledges that consecutive sentencing did not constitute a departure under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.F. The decision to impose consecutive sentencing was a discretionary determination by the court. State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn.1982); Massey v. State, 352 N.W.2d 487, 489 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 16, 1984). Appellant asserts the sentence unfairly exaggerates the criminality of his conduct. We disagree. The sentence was not an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 N.W.2d 631, 1987 Minn. App. LEXIS 4456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hendrickson-minnctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack