State v. Hogan

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

State v. Hogan

412 N.W.2d 770, 1987 Minn. App. LEXIS 4849

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedSeptember 29, 1987

DocketNo. C1-87-211

StatusPublished

This text of 412 N.W.2d 770 (State v. Hogan) 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. Hogan, 412 N.W.2d 770, 1987 Minn. App. LEXIS 4849 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SEDGWICK, Judge.

James Hogan appeals from an order denying his post-conviction petition. We affirm.

FACTS

In March 1984, appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of intrafamilial sexual abuse in the first degree for his ongoing sexual abuse of two nieces, ages 6 and 9, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.3641, subd. 1(1), (2)(e) (1982), repealed by 1985 Minn. Laws ch. 286, § 24. In June 1984, appellant received two 43-month sentences, to be served consecutively. Under the guidelines, 43 months was the presumptive sen[771]*771tence for the severity level 8 offense and appellant’s criminal history score of 0. Consecutive sentencing was permissible because the sexual assaults were committed against two different victims. See Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.F.

Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief alleges that under State v. Vadnais, 393 N.W.2d 178 (Minn.1986), and the November 1, 1983, guideline amendments, he was somehow entitled to reduction in his sentence.

This is a frivolous appeal. In Vadnais the supreme court clarified the extent to which defendants could obtain the retroactive benefit of 1983 amendments to duration changes in presumptive sentences under the guidelines. Appellant was sentenced in June 1984 when the 1983 amendments were already in effect. Vadnais is not applicable to appellant’s situation. Although Minn.Stat. § 609.3641 was repealed in 1985, appellant’s criminal acts now fall under the offense of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.342 (1986). The presumptive 43-month sentence for appellant’s offense has not changed since he was sentenced.

DECISION

Appellant is not entitled to a reduction of his sentence.

Affirmed.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SEDGWICK, Judge.

James Hogan appeals from an order denying his post-conviction petition. We affirm.

FACTS

In March 1984, appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of intrafamilial sexual abuse in the first degree for his ongoing sexual abuse of two nieces, ages 6 and 9, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.3641, subd. 1(1), (2)(e) (1982), repealed by 1985 Minn. Laws ch. 286, § 24. In June 1984, appellant received two 43-month sentences, to be served consecutively. Under the guidelines, 43 months was the presumptive sen[771]*771tence for the severity level 8 offense and appellant’s criminal history score of 0. Consecutive sentencing was permissible because the sexual assaults were committed against two different victims. See Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.F.

Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief alleges that under State v. Vadnais, 393 N.W.2d 178 (Minn.1986), and the November 1, 1983, guideline amendments, he was somehow entitled to reduction in his sentence.

This is a frivolous appeal. In Vadnais the supreme court clarified the extent to which defendants could obtain the retroactive benefit of 1983 amendments to duration changes in presumptive sentences under the guidelines. Appellant was sentenced in June 1984 when the 1983 amendments were already in effect. Vadnais is not applicable to appellant’s situation. Although Minn.Stat. § 609.3641 was repealed in 1985, appellant’s criminal acts now fall under the offense of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.342 (1986). The presumptive 43-month sentence for appellant’s offense has not changed since he was sentenced.

DECISION

Appellant is not entitled to a reduction of his sentence.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 N.W.2d 770, 1987 Minn. App. LEXIS 4849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hogan-minnctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack