Sentencing court did not violate ‘Blakely’
by Minnesota Lawyer Staff Reporter
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has determined that a trial court judge did not violate a defendant’s right to a jury trial by determining that his out-of-state convictions were felonies under Minnesota law, which justified an upward departure in his sentence.
After the defendant was convicted of first-degree burglary, the state moved for an aggravated sentence under Minn. Stat. sec. 609.1095, subd. 4, which allows an upward departure when the offender has five or more prior felony convictions and the present offense is a felony that is part of a pattern of criminal conduct.
The jury determined that the defendant’s offense was part of a pattern; the trial judge decided that his out-of-state convictions were felonies. The issue on appeal was whether the judge violated the defendant’s right to a jury trial under Blakely v. Washington, which states that an upward durational departure must be based on jury findings.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals was persuaded by the reasoning of the Washington Court of Appeals in State v. Thomas, which said that a sentencing court may determine whether an out-of-state conviction is a felony under that state’s law without violating Blakely. It said that limited fact finding was permissible where the findings were based on admitted or stipulated facts or facts proved beyond a reasonable doubt in another jurisdiction. Minnesota’s appellate court agreed.
“We conclude that a sentencing court does not violate a defendant’s right to a jury trial when it determines whether out-of-state convictions are felonies under Minnesota law,” wrote Judge Thomas Kalitowski.
The decision is State v. Outlaw.
