Jerome Deon Nunn v. State of Minnesota
2015 Minn. LEXIS 425
Minn.2015Background
- In 1995 Jerome Deon Nunn was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and attempted first-degree premeditated murder; he was sentenced to life with possibility of release for murder and a consecutive 180-month term for attempted murder.
- Nunn previously appealed his convictions and lost; he also unsuccessfully sought postconviction relief in 2007–08 raising ineffective-assistance and prosecutorial-misconduct claims.
- In 2014 Nunn filed a motion to correct his sentence under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, arguing the consecutive 180-month sentence was unauthorized by Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F (1995).
- Nunn also argued his sentence violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was harsher than sentences imposed on non–African American defendants (he presented statistical evidence of racial disparities).
- The postconviction court denied relief, finding the consecutive sentence was authorized under II.F.2 and that Nunn produced no evidence of purposeful racial discrimination; the Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F authorized a consecutive sentence after a life sentence for first-degree murder | Nunn: II.F.2 requires the most severe conviction be "executed according to the guidelines," but first-degree murder is excluded from the guidelines, so a consecutive sentence is unauthorized | State: II.F.2 permits consecutive sentences when offenses are against different victims; a life sentence that is executed (not stayed) satisfies "executed according to the guidelines" | Court: Affirmed—Townsend controls; II.F.2 authorized the consecutive sentence; "executed according to the guidelines" means the sentence is carried out (not stayed) |
| Whether the sentence violates Equal Protection (racial discrimination) | Nunn: Sentence is more severe than sentences for similarly situated non–African American offenders; statistical disparities support claim | State: Statistical evidence alone is insufficient; petitioner must show decisionmaker acted with discriminatory purpose | Court: Denied—under McCleskey, proof of discriminatory purpose is required; general statistics are insufficient; no case-specific proof of purposeful discrimination |
| Whether multiple-victim exception to Minn. Stat. § 609.035 violates separation of powers or double jeopardy | Nunn: (raised for first time on appeal) the exception violates separation-of-powers and double-jeopardy protections | State: Argument was not raised below and thus not preserved for appeal | Court: Not considered—claims were not raised in the postconviction court and are not properly before the Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Townsend v. State, 834 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 2013) (consecutive sentence after life term for murder is authorized under II.F.2 when offenses involve different victims)
- McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (statistical evidence of racial disparities insufficient to prove Equal Protection violation absent proof of discriminatory purpose)
- State v. Lindsey, 314 N.W.2d 823 (Minn. 1982) (interpreting "executed according to the guidelines" to require that the sentence be executed and not stayed)