Volstad v. State

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Volstad v. State

304 N.W.2d 649, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1262

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 24, 1981

DocketNo. 51952

StatusPublished

This text of 304 N.W.2d 649 (Volstad v. State) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 N.W.2d 649, 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/volstad-v-state-minn-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack