Volstad v. State

304 N.W.2d 649, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1262
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided April 24, 1981·No. No. 51952·Published

Opinion

YETKA, Justice.

Petitioner was convicted in 1978 of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. We affirmed that conviction in State v. Volstad, 287 N.W.2d 660 (Minn.1980). Thereafter, petitioner sought postconviction relief from the conviction, claiming that the conviction violated the double jeopardy clause of the federal constitution because it was based on an act of sexual misconduct for which he had previously been punished in a criminal contempt proceeding. See People v. Gray, 69 Ill.2d 44, 12 Ill.Dec. 886, 370 N.E.2d 797 (1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1013, 98 S.Ct. 1887, 56 L.Ed.2d 395 (1978). The postconviction court, after analyzing the record of the contempt proceeding, determined that although evidence of the act of sexual misconduct was admitted at the contempt hearing, the order was based not on that but on a specific finding that petitioner had committed an earlier assaultive act with his automobile against the same victim in violation of a court order. Our analysis of the record on appeal satisfies us that the district court did not err in that conclusion.

Affirmed.

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

Volstad v. State, 304 N.W.2d 649, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1262 (Mich. 1981).

304 N.W.2d 649 (Volstad v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Volstad
287 N.W.2d 660 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1980)
People v. Gray
370 N.E.2d 797 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1977)