State of Minnesota v. Jack Warren Nomeland, A15-2037

Jack Nomeland was charged with failing to register as a predatory offender under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 5(a); he stipulated he was required to register and that his obligation had not lapsed but denied the violation.
Court exhibits showed Nomeland was assigned risk level III, but the copies given to the jury redacted any reference to predatory-offender status and risk level; Nomeland did not admit risk-level-III status or waive a jury finding on it.
The jury convicted Nomeland of failure to register but made no finding about his risk level.
At sentencing the PSI recommended 16 months plus a ten-year conditional-release term; the court sentenced Nomeland to 14 months and imposed the ten-year conditional-release term.
Nomeland appealed, arguing the conditional-release term violated his Sixth Amendment right because the jury did not find (and he did not admit) that he was risk-level III when the offense occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether imposing a 10-year conditional-release term required a jury finding (or defendant admission) that defendant was risk-level III	State relied on PSI and requested court follow PSI recommendations (imposing the term)	Nomeland: Sixth Amendment/Apprendi violation—fact increasing penalty (risk-level III) must be found by jury or admitted	Court: Vacated the 10-year conditional-release term because jury did not find, nor did defendant admit, risk-level III status
Whether remand for a resentencing hearing (to determine risk level) would violate double jeopardy	State implicitly sought remand for proper factfinding at resentencing	Nomeland: Remand for resentencing on risk level would violate double jeopardy because the state did not seek enhancement at trial and jury received redacted evidence	Court: Remand for retrial/resentence on the risk-level issue would violate double jeopardy here; court ordered the conditional-release term vacated without a resentencing on that issue

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing punishment beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (sentencing facts that increase the prescribed range must be admitted or found by a jury)
State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131 (Minn. 2005) (presumptive guidelines sentence is the maximum a judge may impose based solely on jury verdict or defendant admissions)
State v. Her, 862 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 2015) (risk-level-III status is not a prior-conviction exception to Apprendi; jury must find or defendant admit risk level before imposition of ten-year conditional release)
Hankerson v. State, 723 N.W.2d 232 (Minn. 2006) (double jeopardy principles limit retrial/resentencing when state did not seek enhancement at trial or presented insufficient evidence on aggravating factors)