847 N.W.2d 63
Minn. Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant Michael Franklin pleaded guilty in Feb. 2013 to a fourth-degree controlled-substance offense.
- Plea hearing and PSIR indicated five prior felony convictions (1990, 1992, 1998, 2002, 2006) and potential career-offender sentence.
- District court found five prior felonies and sentenced as career offender with a double durational departure.
- Appellant conceded he fit the career-offender definition; the appeal challenges that status.
- Minn.Stat. § 609.13, subd. 1(2) deeming a fel ony conviction as a misdemeanor if a prison sentence is stayed and probation completed is controlling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 609.13(2) deeming applies to the career-offender five-felony requirement | Franklin contends the 1990 conviction is deemed a misdemeanor, leaving only four felonies | Respondent argues waiver issues prevent challenge and/or career-offender predicate met | Five-felony predicate not met; conviction deemed misdemeanor; remand for resentencing |
| Whether a defendant may challenge sentencing calculations notwithstanding conceding the issue | Maurstad allows review of illegal sentence despite waiver | Waiver applies; challenge barred on appeal | Appellant may challenge the criminal-history calculation despite initial concession |
| Whether the current offense was part of a pattern of criminal conduct | Not necessary if five felonies not shown | Pattern-of-criminal-conduct finding required for departure | Not reached on remand; dispositive issue is lack of five prior felonies |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moon, 463 N.W.2d 517 (Minn.1990) (discusses 609.13 effects on other statutes and civil rights restoration)
- In re Woollett, 540 N.W.2d 829 (Minn.1995) (stay of sentence does not erase felony conviction for licensure purposes)
- State v. Maurstad, 738 N.W.2d 141 (Minn.2007) (illegal sentence may be reviewed when sentencing based on criminal history score)
- State v. Jeter, 558 N.W.2d 505 (Minn.App.1997) (de novo review of legality of sentencing decision)
- State v. Rick, 835 N.W.2d 478 (Minn.2013) (statutory interpretation of ambiguous language)