Title: State v. Peterson

State: minnesota

Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court

Document:

331 N.W.2d 483 (1983) STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Glenn Melvin PETERSON, Appellant. No. C4-82-1642. Supreme Court of Minnesota. April 1, 1983. William E. Falvey, Ramsey County Public Defender, and Michael F. Cromett, Asst. Public Defender, St. Paul, for appellant. *484 Hubert H. Humphrey III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Tom Foley, County Atty., and Steven C. DeCoster, Asst. County Atty., St. Paul, for respondent. Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument. AMDAHL, Chief Justice. This is an appeal out of Ramsey County District Court from a sentence of 30 months in prison imposed on defendant for the offense of simple robbery. The only issue is whether the trial court erred in computing the defendant's criminal history score for sentencing purposes. If the defendant had a criminal history score of three, as the trial court determined, then the trial court correctly sentenced defendant to an executed term of 30 months in prison. If defendant's true criminal history score was two, then defendant should have received a stayed 27-month sentence. The specific issue is whether it was error to assign defendant one point for his juvenile record. We hold that it was not error, and affirm the sentence. Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, II.B.4. (1982) provides: The comments to II.B.4. state in relevant part as follows: In State v. Torgerson, 329 N.W.2d 63 (Minn.1983), we interpreted II.B.4. in a case in which the defendant was adjudicated delinquent in a single proceeding for numerous separate felony acts committed on the day that he became 16 years old. Looking behind the single adjudication of delinquency, the trial court concluded that the defendant had committed multiple acts as a juvenile that would have been felonies if committed by an adult and that therefore the single adjudication of delinquency should count as two or more adjudications of delinquency. We concluded otherwise, stating: 329 N.W.2d at 65. In this case the defendant clearly engaged in and admitted engaging in repeated felony-type behavior after he became 16 years old. Also, he had not become 21 at the time he committed the current offense. The only issue is whether the fact that the juvenile court referee did not use the words "adjudicated delinquent" on each of the four occasions defendant appeared before him after becoming 16 means that the four findings cannot be counted as adjudications of delinquency. According to a juvenile court referee who testified at the sentencing hearing, the policy of the juvenile court in Ramsey County was that once a juvenile was adjudicated delinquent, the court had continuing jurisdiction over the juvenile until that jurisdiction was formally terminated or until the juvenile was no longer a juvenile. Thus, after his initial adjudication, whenever defendant was brought into court and admitted committing an offense, he was not formally adjudicated delinquent on the basis of the offense because he already had been formally adjudicated delinquent before. In 1980 the reference law was amended to allow the establishment of a prima facie case for certification based on juvenile "adjudications" for felony offenses. Minn. Stat. § 260.125 (1980). Despite the juvenile court's policy of "once adjudicated, always adjudicated," the judge of the juvenile court in Ramsey County ruled that no adjudication could be used for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case for certification unless the findings and orders of the court expressly stated that an adjudication was made. The trial court ruled that the prior findings were in effect adjudications within the meaning of Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, II.B.4. (1982) and that therefore he should receive one juvenile point in computing the criminal history score. We have concluded that we need not decide this issue because in 1981, when defendant was "adjudicated" in connection with a nonfelony offense, the referee retroactively adjudicated defendant for the four felony offenses that defendant admitted in 1979 and 1980. *486 In view of the issue raised but not decided in this case, the Sentencing Guidelines Commission might wish to consider amending the Guidelines to conform to Minn.Stat. § 260.125, which has been amended to refer to findings "pursuant to an admission in court or after trial" rather than "adjudications." See Minn.Stat. § 260.125, subd. 3(3)(1982). Affirmed.