Opinion
A23-1253
02-20-2024
The State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Leonard Barnell Batiste, Appellant.
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-K7-99-003423
Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Bjorkman, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
LOUISE DOVRE BJORKMAN, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In March 2000, appellant Leonard Barnell Batiste was convicted of second-degree murder for the death of A.W. and attempted murder for the shooting of L.T. following a jury trial. At the time of the offenses, the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines (guidelines) permitted district courts to impose consecutive sentences for murder and attempted-murder convictions. Minn. Sent'g Guidelines II.F (2000). The district court did so, imposing permissive consecutive sentences of 386 months for the second-degree-murder conviction and 153 months for the attempted-murder conviction. Batiste's convictions became final on November 25, 2001.
2. In 2005, the guidelines were amended to include a chart that listed all of the offenses eligible for permissive consecutive sentencing; the list did not include attempted murder. Minn. Sent'g Guidelines VI (Supp. 2005). In 2009, the guidelines were again amended to provide that "[c]onvictions for attempted offenses or conspiracies to commit offenses listed below are eligible for permissive consecutive sentences as well as convictions for completed offenses." Minn. Sent'g Guidelines VI (Supp. 2009). Because the list includes second-degree murder as an offense eligible for permissive consecutive sentences, attempted murder is also eligible. This later amendment remains unchanged in the current version of the guidelines. See Minn. Sent'g Guidelines 6.A (2022).
3. In November 2022, Batiste moved the district court to resentence him to concurrent sentences, arguing that the 2005 guidelines apply under the amelioration doctrine. The district court denied the motion. Batiste appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion.
4. A district court "may at any time correct a sentence not authorized by law." Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9. "The amelioration doctrine applies an amendment mitigating punishment to acts committed prior to that amendment's effective date, if there has not been a final judgment reached in the case." State v. Robinette, 964 N.W.2d 143, 146 (Minn. 2021). The doctrine applies when: "(1) there is no statement by the Legislature that clearly establishes the Legislature's intent to abrogate the amelioration doctrine; (2) the amendment mitigates punishment; and (3) final judgment has not been entered as of the date the amendment takes effect." State v. Kirby, 899 N.W.2d 485, 490 (Minn. 2017). All three prongs must be met for the amelioration doctrine to apply. Id.
5. Batiste does not dispute that his convictions were final four years before the 2005 guideline amendments. But he asserts that Kirby's finality prong is "flawed" and invites us to depart in the interests of justice. We decline the invitation. This court is an error-correcting court that may not depart from supreme court precedent. See Butler v. Jakes, 977 N.W.2d 867, 874 (Minn.App. 2022). Moreover, Batiste does not provide any authority to support such a departure. See State v. Bursch, 905 N.W.2d 884, 889 (Minn.App. 2017) ("Arguments are forfeited if they are presented in a summary and conclusory form, do not cite to applicable law, and fail to analyze the law when claiming that errors of law occurred.").
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.