State v. Vang
2014 Minn. LEXIS 216
| Minn. | 2014Background
- In August 2001, a 14-year-old appellant, Jerry Vang, faced delinquency charges for first-degree felony murder (drive-by shooting), second-degree felony murder (drive-by shooting), and attempted first-degree felony murder; he later pleaded guilty to two charges and was sentenced.
- On remand in 2010 after a prior reversal for lack of juvenile-adult certification, the State filed in district court; Vang pleaded not guilty and a jury found him guilty on three counts in trial.
- The district court initially certified the proceedings to adult court, but the certification occurred while the matter was in juvenile court, prompting a jurisdictional challenge on remand.
- Vang argued the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction since he was improperly certified as an adult, given prior juvenile proceedings and age—he was 23 on remand.
- The court held the district court had original and exclusive jurisdiction under Minn. Stat. § 260B.193, subd. 5(d) because the offenses occurred before he turned 18 and the indictment was filed after he turned 21, so district court jurisdiction attached.
- Appellant was convicted of first-degree felony murder (drive-by shooting) and attempted first-degree felony murder (drive-by shooting); he was sentenced to life with release eligibility and a concurrent 90-month term on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court had subject-matter jurisdiction | Vang—no jurisdiction in district court | State—jurisdiction valid under 260B.193 | District court had jurisdiction on remand |
| Sufficiency of drive-by shooting predicate | Evidence showed intent to kill; petition for drive-by shooting supported | Discharge showed recklessness toward property/vehicles | Sufficient evidence supported drive-by shooting conviction |
| Jury instruction on drive-by shooting elements | Hayes required instruction that recklessly discharged toward vehicle/building | Instruction adequate overall | No plain-error affecting substantial rights; evidence supported verdict |
| Juvenile life sentence constitutionality under Miller | Mandatory life without parole for juvenile violates Miller | Release after 30 years complies with Miller | Not cruel or unusual under federal or Minnesota constitutions; Miller not violated |
| Post-remand sentencing disparity under Holmes | Longer sentence after retrial improper under Holmes | Holmes not controlling; extensions permissible for trial-based factors | Court did not abuse discretion; declined extension of Holmes; justified after trial factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. 2013) (driven-by shooting elements require recklessness toward building/vehicle for drive-by)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment when no opportunity to consider mitigating factors)
- Mitchell v. Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d 481 (Minn. 1998) (juvenile life sentence not per se cruel or unusual; no nationwide consensus against it)
- Pearce v. North Carolina, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) (due process concerns for harsher sentence after retrial; objective reasons required)
- Holmes v. State, 281 Minn. 294, 161 N.W.2d 650 (Minn. 1968) (policy against increasing penalties after appeal (prophylactic); not necessarily good law)
- Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (U.S. 1989) (presumption of vindictiveness not apply when sentence after trial is harsher than after plea)
- State v. Leake, 767 N.W.2d 5 (Minn. 2009) (plea-bargain advice may be objectively unreasonable; Leake II discussed evidentiary hearing needed)
- State v. Sontoya, 788 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. 2010) (evidence overwhelming; substantial rights not affected)