Court Opinion

ID: 9663298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:34:39.54067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:47.533644
License: Public Domain

RANDALL, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur specially because, while in complete accord with the majority on issue one, I would go on to answer issue two in the affirmative and hold that, on these facts, had Minn.Stat. § 609.615, subd. la been applied against appellant, it would have violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto legislation. Thus, for both reasons I would reverse.
Por a penal law to be ex post facto, two critical elements must be present: it must apply to acts which occur before its enactment, and it must increase the punishment for an offense. Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 29, 101 S.Ct. 960, 964, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981). Here, appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of felony theft for acts committed between September 1984 and November 1986. On May 29,1987, the legislature passed Minn.Stat. § 609.165, subd. la, which makes felons convicted of crimes of violence ineligible to possess any firearm until 10 years after the felon's civil rights are restored. Prior to the enactment of this provision, state law prohibited convicted felons only from possessing pistols, not all firearms. Thus, if section 609.165, subd. la were applied in this case it would violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto legislation.