State v. Humes

Full title: STATE OF MINNESOTA, Respondent, v. KEITH HUMES, Appellant

Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Date published: Oct 21, 1997

No. C5-97-1217 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 1997)

Opinion

No. C5-97-1217.

Filed October 21, 1997.

Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. 93097429.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, (for respondent).

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael Richardson, Assistant County Attorney, (for respondent).

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Melissa Sheridan, Assistant Public Defender, (for appellant).

Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Parker, Judge, and Foley, Judge.^_

_ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. Art. VI, § 10.

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SHORT, Judge.

A jury found Keith Humes guilty of three counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of attempted second-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.343 (1996). The trial court sentenced Humes to a 34-month prison term, execution stayed for five years. When Humes violated his probation, the trial court executed the stayed sentence. Six months later, on notification from the correctional facility, the trial court imposed a five-year conditional release term. On appeal, Humes argues the trial court did not have the authority to impose this additional term. We affirm.

DECISION

A sentence constitutes a final judgment, even if execution is stayed. State v. Lindquist , 254 Minn. 28, 29, 93 N.W.2d 521, 523 (1958); see State v. Walsh , 456 N.W.2d 442, 444 (Minn.App. 1990) (discussing reasons to recognize criminal defendant's legitimate expectation of finality in sentence once pronounced). However, trial courts are permitted to correct an unauthorized sentence at any time. Minn.R.Crim.P. 27.03, subd. 9; see Bangert v. State , 282 N.W.2d 540, 547 (Minn. 1979) (concluding defendant should not be allowed to benefit by the sentencing court's error in its application of the law).

Humes argues the trial court abused its discretion by adding the five-year conditional release term to his sentence after he violated the terms of his probation. We disagree. The record demonstrates: (1) Humes was convicted under a statute that requires imposition of a conditional release term, (2) in its original sentence, the sentencing court failed to impose the conditional release term, and (3) six months after execution, the sentencing court imposed the conditional release term to correct its original sentence. See Minn. Stat. § 609.346, subd. 5 (1996) (mandating conditional release term for persons convicted under Minn. Stat. § 609.343); Bangert , 282 N.W.2d at 547 (holding an original sentence not authorized by law when mandatory statutory language specifically prohibited sentence imposed on defendant); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 16 (1996) ("shall" is mandatory). Because the original sentence was contrary to the statutorily mandated sentence, the sentencing court's subsequent imposition of the mandatory conditional release term was proper.

Affirmed.