This opinion will be unpublished and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
John Gerald Iverson,
State of Minnesota,
Washington County District Court
File No. K9011058
John Gerald Iverson, MCF/Moose Lake,
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Crippen, Judge.*
In this appeal from an order denying postconviction relief, appellant argues that the district court erred in ruling that he was not entitled to relief under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), from an 18-month upward-durational-departure sentence and a ten-year conditional-release term imposed pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7 (2004). Because Blakely does not apply to appellant’s sentence, we affirm.
Appellant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and was sentenced in July 2001 to executed concurrent prison terms of 162 months on the first count (representing a 144-month presumptive sentence and a negotiated upward departure of 18 months) and 77 months on the second count (the presumptive sentence). The district court also imposed a ten-year statutory conditional release period under Minn. Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7. Appellant petitioned for postconviction relief under Blakely, and appeals from the order denying that petition.
Under Blakely,the greatest sentence a judge may
impose is “the maximum sentence . . . [available] solely on the basis of the
facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” 124
Appellant also argues that the presumptive sentence in his case was calculated based on an incorrect criminal-history score of four. Although appellant raised this issue in his postconviction petition, the district court did not address it. But presentencing investigation documents in the record and statements by the court and both counsel at the plea hearing and sentencing hearing indicate that the presumptive guidelines sentence was calculated based on a criminal-history score of two and an offense-severity level of eight. Although the district court did not rule on or make findings relative to this issue, we conclude that there is no merit to appellant’s assertion of an incorrect criminal-history score.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.