State v. Jude

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Jude

514 N.W.2d 779, 1994 Minn. LEXIS 254, 1994 WL 132147

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided March 31, 1994·No. No. C6-93-1542·Published

Opinion

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED (1) that the petition for further review filed by defendant, Douglas Charles Jude, be, and the same is, granted and (2) that the district court’s order denying defendant’s motion to modify his sentence be, and the same is, affirmed. The court of appeals erred in failing to consider defendant’s appeal, which challenged a double durational departure, on the merits. Defendant was free to obtain appellate review by direct appeal, by moving the sentencing court for modification and then appealing, or by seeking postconviction relief and then appealing. State v. Fields, 416 N.W.2d 734, 735-36 (Minn.1987); Bixby v. State, 344 N.W.2d 390, 392-94 (Minn.1984); Jackson v. State, 329 N.W.2d 66, 67 (Minn.1983); Davis v. State, 324 N.W.2d 802, 803 (Minn.1982). Rather than remand to the court of appeals for consideration of the appeal on the merits, as we did in Fields, supra, we have considered defendant’s appeal on the merits and concluded that the double durational departure was justified. Affirmed.

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

ORDER

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED (1) that the petition for further review filed by defendant, Douglas Charles Jude, be, and the same is, granted and (2) that the district court’s order denying defendant’s motion to modify his sentence be, and the same is, affirmed. The court of appeals erred in failing to consider defendant’s appeal, which challenged a double durational departure, on the merits. Defendant was free to obtain appellate review by direct appeal, by moving the sentencing court for modification and then appealing, or by seeking postconviction relief and then appealing. State v. Fields, 416 N.W.2d 734, 735-36 (Minn.1987); Bixby v. State, 344 N.W.2d 390, 392-94 (Minn.1984); Jackson v. State, 329 N.W.2d 66, 67 (Minn.1983); Davis v. State, 324 N.W.2d 802, 803 (Minn.1982). Rather than remand to the court of appeals for consideration of the appeal on the merits, as we did in Fields, supra, we have considered defendant’s appeal on the merits and concluded that the double durational departure was justified. Affirmed.

State v. Jude, 514 N.W.2d 779, 1994 Minn. LEXIS 254, 1994 WL 132147 (Mich. 1994).

Pincite

514 N.W.2d 779 (State v. Jude) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related