This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A04-2197

 

 

Frederick Tyus,

petitioner,

Appellant,

 

vs.

 

State of Minnesota,

Respondent.

 

 

Filed June 7, 2005

Affirmed
Crippen, Judge*

 

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.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

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. 

FACTS

In May 1993, appellant Frederick Tyus pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated assault and was given a stayed sentence of 60 months.  Four years later, appellant robbed seven convenience stores and was arrested.  Appellant conceded that these robberies violated his 1993 probation.  

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of aggravated robbery (including the seven convenience store robberies) and his probation from the 1993 conviction was revoked.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.

D E C I S I O N

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 (Minn. 2001).  Multiple current felony convictions for crimes against persons may be sentenced consecutively to each other.  Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F2.  Permissive sentences may be given without departure.  Id.  This court has upheld consecutive sentences in cases of aggravated robbery with multiple victims.  State v. Goulette, 442 N.W.2d 61, 793, 795 (Minn. 1989).

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.

            Affirmed.