Pageau v. State
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1DissentSchellhas, Judge
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusions that: (1) the district court’s pronouncement of Pageau’s sentence is ambiguous; and (2) a district court’s pronouncement of consecutive stayed sentences does not automatically result in stacked probationary periods; to impose stacked probationary periods when pronouncing consecutive stayed sentences, a district court must specify that the probationary periods are to be stacked; and, in the absence of such a statement, the attendant probationary periods run simultaneously.
The majority concludes that Pageau’s sentence is ambiguous in part…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. AustinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- State v. RandolphSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- State v. RasinskiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991