Nicollet County District Court File No. K6-00-195.
When a district court stays the imposition of a sentence, thereby precluding a challenge to the duration of the sentence on direct review, and later vacates the stay and imposes an upward durational departure at a probation-revocation hearing, the new rule of criminal procedure announced in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004),applies retroactively to a defendant's pending appeal of the sentence imposed.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wright, Judge
Considered and decided by Wright, Presiding Judge; Randall, Judge; and Minge, Judge.
Appellant challenges the duration of his sentence first imposed at a probation-revocation hearing, arguing that the district court, by vacating the stay of imposition and imposing and executing a sentence that is an upward durational departure from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, violated appellant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial as recognized in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). We reverse appellant's sentence and remand this matter to the district court for reconsideration of the sentence in light of the new rule announced in Blakely.
In January 2000, L.B. obtained an order for protection against appellant Anthony Beaty. Three months later, L.B. reported to law enforcement that Beaty sent a letter to her home, in violation of the order for protection. In the letter, Beaty called L.B. derogatory names and threatened L.B.'s life. Beaty was subsequently charged with violation of an order for protection, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 14(d)(1) (1998), and terroristic threats, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd. 1 (1998).
Beaty pleaded guilty to both offenses. At the sentencing hearing on October 2, 2000, the district court imposed the presumptive guidelines sentence of 18 months' imprisonment with a stay of execution for the terroristic-threats offense. For the conviction of violation of an order for protection, the district court stayed the imposition of a sentence and placed Beaty on supervised probation for five years.
Several years later, Beaty was alleged to be in violation of the conditions of his probation. At the probation-revocation hearing on June 23, 2004, Beaty admitted the violations. The district court revoked Beaty's probation and executed the 18-month sentence previously imposed on the terroristic-threats conviction. The district court then vacated the stay of imposition on the conviction of violation of an order for protection and imposed a 36-month executed sentence, to be served concurrently. This sentence was an upward durational departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence.*fn1 The district court's reasons for imposing the upward departure were that (1) Beaty repeatedly violated the order for protection; (2) L.B. suffered extreme adverse effects; and (3) probation did not deter Beaty from violating the order for protection. The next day, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). This appeal followed.
Does Blakely v. Washington apply retroactively to a pending appeal arising from a probation-revocation proceeding in which the district court vacated a stay of imposition and imposed a sentence that is an upward ...