authorize a party to file a motion under
its terms, the supreme court has allowed
parties to invoke the rule by motion.
In such cases, the two-year statute of
limitations under §590 does not apply.
Nonetheless, the trial judge properly
denied credit under the plain meaning
of the statute. Keith Eugene Washington v. State, A13-1524 (Minn. App.
04/07/2014). Slip op. at http://mn.gov/
■ Sentence: Credit for Conditional
Release; Supervised Release Violation.
Respondent received a prison term of
22 and 2/3 months in prison plus 11 and
1/3 months supervised release. Because he was not able to find approved
housing, he was found in violation and
served the entire executed sentence in
custody before beginning the ten-year
supervised release term. The DOC
changed the end date of his conditional
release term by adding back the 11 and
1/3 months that he would have gotten
had he successfully served supervised
release, but did not do so because of the
Held, when an offender’s supervised
release is revoked and the offender is
returned to prison, the offender is no
longer serving on supervised release,
and conditional release should not be
reduced by the time spent in prison
after supervised release is revoked. State
v. Gregory Eugene Ward, A13-1433
(Minn. App. 04/14/2014). Slip op.
■ Sentence: Juveniles; Life without
Parole. Again, the supreme court reiterates its decision in Chambers v. State,
831 N. W.2d 311 (Minn. 2013), that the
rule announced in Miller v. Alabama,
__ U.S. __, 132 S. C. 2455 (2012),
which states that life without parole for
a juvenile violates the 8th Amendment
prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment, is not retroactive. This
decision would apply retroactively to a
juvenile whose sentence was “pending”
at the time. However, the supreme court
held in Chambers that, although it was
a new constitutional analysis, it was a
nonwatershed rule of criminal constitutional procedure under Teague.
The concurring opinion by Justice
Lillehaug defers, under stare decisis to
Chambers, but states: “One can only
hope that the United States Supreme
Court will take its earliest opportunity
to clarify whether Miller v. Alabama …
LOOKING FOR A
THAT’S ADVISOR FRIENDLY?
312 Central Avenue SE • Minneapolis • 612-436-1424
D. Kevin Briggs, CSOP
Senior Vice President
Contact Kevin for more information!