This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. ' 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Jay Robert Lindman,
Filed July 30, 1996
Crow Wing County District Court
File No. K4932365
Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for Respondent)
Donald F. Ryan, Crow Wing County Attorney, 326 Laurel Street, Courthouse, Brainerd, MN 56401 (for Respondent)
John J. Scanlan, Route 2, Box 259, Hinckley, MN 55037 (for Appellant)
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Schumacher, Judge, and Davies, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Jay Robert Lindman appeals the district court's denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing he did not agree to consecutive sentences for two separate charges and that he was not given credit for "good time" served. We affirm.
On January 12, 1993, Lindman pleaded guilty in Aitkin County to making terroristic threats against his estranged wife Juanita Lindman. The court stayed imposition of the presumptive 15-month sentence and placed Lindman on probation for five years.
On December 29, 1993, Lindman was charged in Crow Wing County with first-degree burglary and again making terroristic threats against Juanita Lindman. As a result of these new charges, Aitkin County revoked the stay of imposition and commenced probation revocation proceedings.
On November 1, 1994, Lindman agreed to plead guilty to the terroristic threats charge if the burglary charge was dismissed. As part of the plea agreement, Lindman stated that he understood his sentence in the Crow Wing matter would be "consecutive" to any sentence he received from the Aitkin County probation revocation proceeding.
On March 6, 1995, the sentencing court imposed sentence in the Aitkin matter. Lindman was sentenced to a presumptive 15 months, with 10 months to be served in the Aitkin County jail and 5 months of supervised release to follow. The sentencing court then stayed imposition of a 21-month sentence for the Crow Wing matter and placed Lindman on probation. As a condition of probation, the court required Lindman to serve six months in the Crow Wing County jail. The Crow Wing sentence was stayed until completion of the Aitkin sentence. The court ordered Lindman to serve first in the Aitkin County jail and then in the Crow Wing County jail.
On June 9, 1995, the district court denied Lindman's motion to serve the sentences concurrently but stated that the five months of supervised release for the Aitkin sentence would expire during the six-month Crow Wing sentence. The court gave Lindman 10 days credit for time served but stated the jail sentence was not subject to "good time."
In August 1995, Lindman brought a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing the Crow Wing sentence should be concurrent with the Aitkin sentence and he should have been given credit for "good time" for the Aitkin sentence. The district court denied Lindman's petition, and he appeals.
D E C I S I O N
1. The decision to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences falls within the discretion of the trial court. Minn. Stat. ' 609.15, subd. 1 (1994); State v. Ouk, 516 N.W.2d 180, 186 (Minn. 1994). "Absent compelling circumstances, this court will not interfere with actions of the sentencing court * * *." State v. Beamon, 438 N.W.2d 397, 400 (Minn. App. 1989), review denied (Minn. May 12, 1989).
Lindman argues the sentencing court erred in imposing consecutive sentences. We disagree. Lindman waived his right to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines as part of his plea agreement. See State v. Givens, 544 N.W.2d 774, 777 (Minn. 1996) (allowing defendants to waive right to be sentenced under guidelines).
Lindman agreed to the consecutive sentences in his plea agreement in exchange for the lesser Crow Wing sentence. Defense counsel did not object to the agreement either when it was proposed or when the sentences were imposed. Under Givens, that agreement was sufficient to allow consecutive sentences.
2. Lindman argues he was denied "good time" credit for the Aitkin sentence. We disagree.
"Good conduct" allowance. Any person sentenced for a term to any county jail, * * * whether the term is part of an executed sentence or is imposed as a condition of probation, shall * * * diminish the term of the sentence one day for each two days served * * *.
Minn. Stat. ' 643.29, subd. 1 (1994).
The Aitkin sentence was a presumptive 15-month executed sentence that the sentencing court split into 10 months in jail and 5 months of supervised release. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines IV (splitting sentences into prison and supervised release with no credit for good time). This is the same as if Lindman had been sentenced to the straight 15 months and then earned 5 months supervised release for good time. See Minn. Stat. ' 244.05, subd. 1 (1994) (allowing supervised release based on good time earned). The sentencing court's split did not deny Lindman good time credit.