Court Upholds Multiple Current Consecutive Felony Sentences

Nunn v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 8/5/2015.  A jury convicted Mr. Nunn back in 1995 of first degree premeditated murder and attempted first degree premeditated murder.  There were apparently two victims.  The trial court imposed a life sentence on the first degree premeditated murder verdict, and imposed a consecutive sentence of 180 months on the attempt verdict.  Mr. Nunn argues in this Rule 27.03 motion to correct sentence that the consecutive sentence for the attempt verdict was not authorized under the 1995 Guidelines. That's because, he claimed, the Guidelines permit consecutive sentences only when:

the offender is convicted of multiple current felony convictions for crimes against different persons, and when the sentence for the most severe current conviction is executed according to the guidelines.”

First degree premeditated murder is excluded from the Guidelines so Mr. Nunn argued that this count can't have been "executed according to the guidelines."  

Justice Wright, for a unanimous court, says that Mr. Nunn's sentencing claim fails because of a past opinion: Townsend v. State, 834 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 2013) wherein the Justice claimed that the court said that a life sentence for a first degree murder conviction satisfies the requirement in section II.F.2 that consecutive sentences are authorized only when the most severe current conviction is executed "according to the guidelines."  

That's not quite what Townsend said.  Justice Dietzen limited the holding in Townsend to the "two victims" exception that permits consecutive sentencing and said nothing about the "executed according to the guidelines" argument of Mr. Nunn. The other opinion that Justice Wright relied upon is State v. Lindsey, 314 N.W.2d 823 (Minn. 1982), wherein the court said that the phrase "executed according to the guidelines" only means that the sentence for the most severe conviction be executed and not stayed.  The Justice is on firmer ground in reliance on Lindsey.  And, if that "law" isn't enough, there's the dictionary "law," which says that "according to" means "in keeping with."  

Mr. Nunn also argues an equal protection claim that his sentence is more severe than the sentences of other similarly situated offenders who, unlike Mr. Nunn, are not African American. The court rejects Mr. Nunn's equal protection claim for lack of proof of discriminatory purpose.  All that Mr. Nunn could muster was "general statistical data showing racial disparities in sentencing both nationally and in Minnesota.  Under McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) that's not enough.  So, the denial of this claim by the post conviction court was "in keeping" with McCleskey.