Miller v. State
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MINGE, Judge.
Appellant challenges his sentence on the ground that Minn.Stat. § 609.109, subd. 7(a) (1998), did not allow the district court to impose consecutive terms of conditional release. Because we conclude that the statute’s text and purpose do not support the imposition of consecutive conditional release terms, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
FACTS
Appellant Howard Wayne Miller was charged with two counts of sexual misconduct based on separate incidents against the same victim, and a consolidated jury trial was conducted. Appellant was convicted of one count of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- State v. HumesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- State v. KoenigSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- State v. WukawitzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- State v. StutelbergCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. MeredykCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2008
- State v. WardCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Everett Williams, Jr.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
- State v. MeredykCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2008