This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Filed June 7, 2005
Hennepin County District Court
File Nos. 97117044, 97113353, 97110454
Frederick Tyus, OID #159810, MCF–Oak Park Heights, 5329 Osgood Avenue North, Stillwater, MN 55082 (pro se appellant)
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael K. Walz, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge, Klaphake, Judge, and Crippen, Judge.
Appellant challenges a denial of his petition for postconviction relief, arguing that the consecutive sentences imposed for two robbery convictions represent a departure from the sentencing guidelines determined by the sentencing court without appropriate reasons. Because appellant’s argument rests on a misstatement of the law, we affirm.
In May 1993, appellant
In October 1998, appellant pleaded guilty to 12 charges of aggravated robbery (including the seven convenience store robberies) and his probation from the 1993 conviction was revoked. In January 1999, the district court imposed a 98-month sentence on one robbery count, to run consecutively to the newly executed 1993 sentence. The court announced a 60-month sentence on another count, to run consecutively to the 98-month sentence on the first count. The court then sentenced appellant to three additional sentences, on the other 10 counts, all to run concurrently with the previous sentence.
Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief, asserting that the district court departed from the sentencing guidelines when it imposed consecutive rather than concurrent sentences for some of the charges. The district court denied appellant’s request.
Appellant suggests that the district court erred when it applied
consecutive sentences to some of the robbery charges against him. The decisions of a postconviction court will
not be disturbed unless the court abused its discretion. Dukes
v. State, 621 N.W.2d 246, 251 (
Appellant argues that the imposition of consecutive sentences was a departure from the guidelines requiring the district court to provide findings to support the departure. But appellant’s sentence was based on multiple current felony convictions for crimes against multiple persons, for which the district court can permissibly sentence him to consecutive terms. Because the court’s determination to give appellant consecutive sentences on two of his offenses does not constitute a departure that must be justified by a statement of reasons, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant postconviction relief.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.