Jones v. State, Minn.S.Ct., 8/10/2016. In this post conviction petition Mr. Jones says that the limitations provisions that were enacted in 2005 cannot constitutionally be applied to him because the crimes for which he was found guilty occurred in 1992, long before the limitations provisions were enacted. To apply the limitations provisions to him violates the federal and state prohibitions on ex post facto laws.
Justice Lillehaug rejects this assertion. The limitations provisions did not alter the consequences of any acts that Mr. Jones committed in 1992 and thus did not deprive him of any vested right or create a new obligation or disability regarding a past transaction.
Mr. Jones also argued that Minn.Stat. 631,21, which authorizes a court to order that a criminal action be dismissed applied to his "rare and unusual case." The Justice also rejects this assertion, saying that the "plain words" of the statute applies to an ongoing criminal case in the district court.
Justice Lillehaug rejects this assertion. The limitations provisions did not alter the consequences of any acts that Mr. Jones committed in 1992 and thus did not deprive him of any vested right or create a new obligation or disability regarding a past transaction.
Mr. Jones also argued that Minn.Stat. 631,21, which authorizes a court to order that a criminal action be dismissed applied to his "rare and unusual case." The Justice also rejects this assertion, saying that the "plain words" of the statute applies to an ongoing criminal case in the district court.
No comments:
Post a Comment