From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edstrom v. State

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Nov 12, 1982
326 N.W.2d 10 (Minn. 1982)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

concluding that Coolidge applies only in the absence of contrary legislative intent

Summary of this case from State of Minnesota v. Belcourt
See 10 Summaries

Opinion

No. 82-959.

November 12, 1982.

Appeal from the District Court, Anoka County, Carroll E. Larson, J.

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Mark F. Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Robert W. Johnson, County Atty., Anoka, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by Norman A. Edstrom, age 36, from an order of the Anoka County District Court denying his petition for postconviction relief in the form of resentencing according to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 3 (Supp. 1981). We affirm.

Pursuant to a guilty plea, petitioner was convicted in 1975 of the March 1975 aggravated rape of a young woman. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison, the maximum permitted for the crime of aggravated rape. Petitioner's sentence will expire in March of 1995. That is also his current release date.

In 1981 petitioner filed a petition seeking postconviction relief in the form of resentencing according to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied that petition. Petitioner concedes on appeal that the district court was justified in denying that petition.

However, petitioner raises a new issue, specifically, whether his 30-year sentence should be reduced to 20 years, which is the maximum permitted for criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. Minn.Stat. § 609.342 (1980). In support of this argument, petitioner cites State v. Coolidge, 282 N.W.2d 511 (Minn. 1979). Normally, we would not consider this issue because it was not clearly raised in the trial court. However, in the interest of judicial economy, we address the issue and hold that Coolidge does not apply. In Coolidge, we ruled that a statute mitigating punishment is to be applied to acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached, at least absent a contrary statement of intent by the legislature. In this case the legislature has clearly indicated its intent that the criminal sexual conduct statutes have no effect on crimes committed before the effective date of the act, August 1, 1975. Minn.Stat. § 609.351 (1980). The conduct underlying petitioner's aggravated rape conviction occurred in March of 1975.

Petitioner remains subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Corrections.

Affirmed.

Summaries of

Edstrom v. State

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Nov 12, 1982
326 N.W.2d 10 (Minn. 1982)

concluding that Coolidge applies only in the absence of contrary legislative intent

Summary of this case from State of Minnesota v. Belcourt

considering language that read, "Except for section 8 of this act, crimes committed prior to the effective date of this act are not affected by its provisions"

Summary of this case from State v. Loveless

In Edstrom, the defendant sought postconviction relief in the form of resentencing based on an amendment to a criminal sexual conduct statute.

Summary of this case from State v. Robinette

discussing an offense committed in 1975

Summary of this case from State v. Kirby

In Edstrom, the supreme court explained that Coolidge's common-law rule applies only "absent a contrary statement of intent by the legislature."

Summary of this case from State v. Mendoza

In Edstrom, the supreme court explained that Coolidge's common-law rule applies only "absent a contrary statement of intent by the legislature."

Summary of this case from State v. Anderson

In Edstrom, the supreme court was asked to decide whether a statute that reduced the maximum sentence that could be imposed for a defendant's conduct applied where the defendant's conduct occurred before the ameliorative statute took effect.

Summary of this case from State v. Johnson

In Edstrom v. State, 326 N.W.2d 10 (Minn. 1982), the supreme court held that Coolidge applies only in the absence of a contrary statement of intent by the legislature concerning the effective date of an amendment to a statute.

Summary of this case from State v. Basal

In Edstrom, the postconviction petitioner pleaded guilty to criminal-sexual-conduct charges from conduct that occurred in March 1975. 326 N.W.2d at 10.

Summary of this case from State v. Basal

In Edstrom v. State, 326 N.W.2d 10 (Minn. 1982), Edstrom sought relief from the supreme court because the trial court, in a post-conviction proceeding, refused to resentence him according to the guidelines.

Summary of this case from Edstrom v. State
Case details for

Edstrom v. State

Case Details

Full title:Norman A. EDSTROM, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Nov 12, 1982

Citations

326 N.W.2d 10 (Minn. 1982)

Citing Cases

State v. Larson

-------- Coolidge, however, was clarified by State v. Edstrom. 326 N.W.2d 10, 10 (Minn. 1982). The conduct…

State v. Kirby

Although we have not used the phrase "amelioration doctrine" previously, four of our prior cases have…

35 Citing Cases