Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pageau v. State

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided September 10, 2012No. A12-0158Published

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

  1. State v. AustinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  2. State v. RandolphSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  3. State v. RasinskiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API