Case Name: William Wallace MERRITT, Petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent
Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1985-06-18
Citations: 369 N.W.2d 329
Docket Number: No. C7-85-421
Parties: William Wallace MERRITT, Petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.
Judges: Considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., and ' NIERENGARTEN and RANDALL, JJ., with oral argument waived.
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 369
Pages: 329–329

Head Matter:
William Wallace MERRITT, Petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.
No. C7-85-421.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
June 18, 1985.
Review Denied Aug. 20, 1985.
William Wallace Merritt, pro se.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Tom Foley, Ramsey County Atty., Steven C. DeCoster, Asst. County Atty., St. Paul, for respondent.
Considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., and ' NIERENGARTEN and RANDALL, JJ., with oral argument waived.

Opinion:
SUMMARY OPINION
POPOVICH, Chief Judge.
FACTS
Appellant William Wallace Merritt was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree in Hennepin County and was sentenced to a term of 43 months. Subsequently he was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree in Ramsey County and was given a 43 month sentence consecutive to the Hennepin County sentence. Appellant petitioned for post-conviction relief claiming there was no written reason filed to justify the consecutive sentence. The post-conviction court denied appellant's requested relief stating that under Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.F. the court may use consecutive sentencing where defendant is convicted of different felonies for crimes against different persons. Appellant appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.
DECISION
Consecutive sentencing was authorized by the guidelines and its use did not constitute a departure requiring a departure report. Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.F.
Affirmed.