This opinion will be unpublished and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

A04-694

 

Monte Don Tanner, petitioner,

Appellant,

 

vs.

 

State of Minnesota,

Respondent.

 

Filed May 9, 2006

Affirmed

Halbrooks, Judge

 

 

Hennepin County District Court

File No. 03034027

 

Craig E. Cascarano, 150 South 5th Street, Suite 3260, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for appellant)

 

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN  55101; and

 

Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Thomas A. Weist, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, 300 South 6th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55487  (for respondent)

 

 

            Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Crippen, Judge.*

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

HALBROOKS, Judge

            Appellant challenges the denial of his petition for postconviction relief, arguing that the entire Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines scheme is unconstitutional in the wake of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).  Because Blakely does not render the entire Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines scheme unconstitutional, we affirm.

FACTS

            Appellant Monte Don Tanner challenges the district court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief from his sentence for a conviction of fleeing a peace officer under Minn. Stat. § 609.487, subd. 4(a) (2002).  After appellant pleaded guilty to the offense in 2003, the district court imposed the presumptive 180-month sentence. 

            In 2004, appellant brought a petition for postconviction relief, arguing that the entire sentencing-guidelines scheme is unconstitutional under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).  The postconviction court denied appellant’s petition, noting that appellant’s sentence is not a departure from the sentencing guidelines.  The court did not address the constitutionality of the sentencing-guidelines scheme. 

D E C I S I O N

            Appellant’s sole argument on appeal is that the entire Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines scheme is unconstitutional in the wake of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004).  After appellant filed his brief in this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on this very issue in State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131 (Minn. 2005).  There,the supreme court noted that certain provisions of the sentencing guidelines “suffer from no constitutional infirmity.”  Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d at 147.  Refusing to overturn the sentencing guidelines in their entirety, the court severed the unconstitutional portion and left the remainder of the guidelines intact.  Id. at 146.  

            Appellant has failed to present any argument addressing or distinguishing Shattuck.  Because Blakely does not render the entire Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines scheme unconstitutional, we affirm.

            Affirmed.