State of Minnesota v. Martin David Hutchins, Jr.
2014 Minn. App. LEXIS 92
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Hutchins was convicted in October 2010 of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and first-degree burglary for a 2005 incident; the CSC sentence was 130 months, burglary 105 months, with the CSC upward depart constrained to concurrent terms.
- On appeal, convictions were affirmed but the upward departure was invalid; remand directed the district court to impose the presumptive sentence, permissive consecutive sentences, or empanel a resentencing jury.
- On remand, the district court issued a 146-month total sentence, kept burglary at 105 months, and reduced CSC to 41 months, with sentences to run consecutively.
- Hutchins appealed again; this court reversed and remanded for resentencing to the presumptive sentence or permissive consecutive sentences, total not to exceed 130 months.
- On January 31, 2014 the district court resentenced Hutchins, reducing burglary to 89 months but leaving CSC at 41 months, yielding a total of 130 months, the same as the original sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the burglary sentence could be modified on remand | Hutchins argues the burglary sentence is immune since it was not challenged. | State argues the sentencing package doctrine allows modification to satisfy remand terms. | Yes; the district court could modify as part of the sentencing package on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reesman v. State, 449 N.W.2d 489 (Minn. App. 1989) (statutory or rule-based authority required to modify a sentence)
- Hockensmith, 417 N.W.2d 630 (Minn. 1988) (limits on modifying a stayed sentence; not on remand authority)
- Nunn, 411 N.W.2d 214 (Minn. App. 1987) (remand sentencing permissible when within original sentence scope)
- Misquadace, 629 N.W.2d 487 (Minn. App. 2001) (sentences as a package in plea and subsequent modification)
- Gardiner v. United States, 114 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 1997) (sentencing package concept described in federal context)
- Binford, 108 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 1997) (recognition of sentencing package doctrine in federal circuits)