Opinion
No. C2-96-533.
Filed August 13, 1996.
Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. 91071778.
Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, (for Respondent).
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County Attorney, Jean Burdorf, Staff Attorney, (for Respondent).
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Evan W. Jones, Assistant Public Defender, (for Appellant).
Considered and decided by Norton, Presiding Judge, Schumacher, Judge, and Harten, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
James Walter Young appeals the postconviction court's denial of his petition to modify consecutive sentencing imposed for first- and second-degree assault on two victims, arguing that the sentence unfairly exaggerates his culpability. We affirm.
FACTS
On September 28, 1991, Young attacked his former girlfriend, J.H., and her sister-in-law, G.H., as they were moving J.H.'s belongings from the home she shared with Young. Young, angry at J.H.'s decision to leave him, stabbed her with a butcher's knife until the knife broke. J.H. was stabbed in the chest, back, head, and hand. Among other injuries, her lung was punctured.
Young also stabbed G.H. Two of G.H.'s wounds required stitches. Young told the victims that he was going to kill them.
Young was charged with first- and second-degree attempted murder and first- and second-degree assault. In February 1992, he pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree assault and one count of second-degree assault, and the attempted murder charges were dismissed. The plea negotiation included a joint recommendation for presumptive sentences, imposed consecutively. He was sentenced to 86 months for first-degree assault and 21 months for second-degree assault, for a total term of 107 months.
On March 22, 1995, Young filed a petition for postconviction relief, asking the court, among other things, to reduce his prison term by running his sentences concurrently rather than consecutively. The postconviction court denied the petition, and Young appeals.
DECISION
The decision of a postconviction court will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Kelly, 535 N.W.2d 345, 347 (Minn. 1995). A sentencing court should use the presumptive sentence unless there are "substantial and compelling circumstances." Minn. Sent. Guidelines I.4; State v. Garcia, 302 N.W.2d 643, 647 (Minn. 1981). The decision to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences falls within the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Ouk, 516 N.W.2d 180, 186 (Minn. 1994). Under the guidelines, consecutive sentences may be given [w]hen the offender is convicted of multiple current felony convictions for crimes against different persons, and when the sentence for the most severe current conviction is executed according to the guidelines.
Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F; see also State v. Beamon, 438 N.W.2d 397, 399 (Minn.App. 1989) (applying section II.F), review denied (Minn. May 12, 1989). Where there are multiple victims, a court may impose one sentence per victim as long as the multiple sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct. State v. Norris, 428 N.W.2d 61, 70 (Minn. 1988).
Young argues that the imposition of consecutive sentences, while not a departure from the guidelines, unfairly exaggerates the criminality of his conduct. He argues his offenses "were essentially crimes of passion" and his sentence should reflect that.
We note that a defendant's state of mind does not mitigate the severity of the crime for sentencing purposes. See State v. Kissner, 541 N.W.2d 317, 322 (Minn.App. 1995) (multiple sentences proper even though offense was nonintentional crime), review denied (Minn. Feb. 9, 1996). Further, Young's sentence does not exaggerate the criminality of his conduct. He stabbed both victims while telling them that he would kill them. He stabbed J.H. until the butcher's knife broke. The victims suffered substantial injuries.
The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion by denying Young's petition for postconviction relief.