|
<br />FINANCE AND COMMERCEAPPEUATE COUKl'S EDmoN
<br />
<br />The board denied the requested variance based upon the or-
<br />dinance, the facts, and the intent of thc county's nonconformity
<br />policy. The district court properly determined that the board did
<br />not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Accordingly, the court did not
<br />crr in granting summary judgmcnt in the county's favor.
<br />AOirmed.
<br />
<br />This OpiDiOD will be unpublished and
<br />may Dot be cited except as provided by
<br />MinD. Stat. § 480A.08, sobel. 3 (1992)
<br />
<br />
<br />Olmsted County Huspeni, Judge
<br />District Court Fùe No. C2-93-2869
<br />
<br />Rickford Munger,
<br />petitioner,
<br />
<br />Prose
<br />7525 4th Ave.
<br />Uno Lakes, MN 55014
<br />
<br />Appellant,
<br />
<br />vs.
<br />
<br />Frank Wood,
<br />Commissioner of
<br />Corrections
<br />State of Minnesota,
<br />
<br />Hubert H. Humphrey, ill
<br />State Attomcy Gencral
<br />M. Jacqucline Rcgis
<br />Asst. Attorney Gencral
<br />1100 NCL Towcr
<br />445 Minnesota Street
<br />St. Paul, MN 55101
<br />
<br />Respondent.
<br />
<br />Filed: Novcmber 1, 1994
<br />Office of Appellate Courts
<br />
<br />Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge, r .an!ång,
<br />Judge, and Huspeni, Judge.
<br />
<br />UNPUBLISHED OPINION
<br />HUSPENI, Judge (Hon. Joseph F. Wieners, District Court)
<br />Appellant challenges the denial of his petition for a writ of babeas
<br />corpus, arguing that (1) Minn. Stat. § 243.18 controls the applica-
<br />tion of his earned" good timc" as opposed to MinD. Stat. § 244.04,
<br />subd. 1, and (2) his due process rights have been violåted because
<br />his "good time" accrued to supervised release time instead of
<br />reducing his overall sentcnce. Because wc find that MinD. Stat. §
<br />244.04, subd. 1 controls appellant's earned "good timc" and that
<br />appellant has suffered no violation of his duc process rights, we
<br />affirm.
<br />
<br />FAcrs
<br />The facts of this case are not in dispute. Rickford Munger
<br />(Munger) was convicted of:fust degree burglary and senteoced to
<br />97 months in prison. 'Hc was released on supervised release after
<br />earning good time credit and serving two-thirds of his sentence.
<br />Munger filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that
<br />his good time should reduce his total sentence pursuant to MinD.
<br />Stat. § 243.18, subd. 1 (1992) instead of reducing his tenD of
<br />imprisonment and accruing to his term of supervised release pur-
<br />suant to Minn. Stat. § 244.04, subeL 1 (1992). The district court
<br />denied Munger's petition and Munger appeals.
<br />
<br />DECISION
<br />This court ,reviews a district court's denial of a petition for habeas
<br />, corpus dc novo. State ex reL Sawge v. Rigg, 250,Minn. 370,373,
<br />84 N. W.2d 640, 643 (1957). When no fact issues exist, an appellate
<br />court may determinc the issue on the basis of the trial court record.
<br />State ex rei Bossman v. Hursh, 253 Minn. 578,578,92 N.W.2d
<br />673,673 n.1 (1958).
<br />L AppUcabillty ofMiDn. Stat. § § 243.18 and 244.04
<br />
<br />AI opinions since 1989 C8J be faxed. Cal333-f244.
<br />
<br />'-"" . ---- '_.~ '!.
<br />
<br />November 4, 1994
<br />
<br />Appellant argues that his sentence should be reduced by good
<br />time earned pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 243.18, subd. 1. Application
<br />of the good time earned by appellant is controUed, however, by
<br />Minn. Stat. i 244.04, subd. 1 which provides:
<br />
<br />the term of imprisonment of any inmate sentenced to a
<br />presumptive fixed sentence after May 1, 1980, and whose
<br />crime was committed before August 1, 1993, shall be
<br />reduced in duration by one day for cac:b two days during
<br />which thc inmate violates DOne of the disciplinary offense
<br />rules promulgated by the commissioner. The reduction
<br />shall acaue to thc period of supervised release to be served
<br />by thc inmate.
<br />
<br />This section controls the application of appellant's good time be-
<br />cause he was sentenced after May 1, 1980, for a crime committed
<br />before August 1, 1993. "[T]he only rcasoĊble construction of
<br />[Minn. Stat. § 244.04, subd. 1] is that of a single good-time
<br />deduction, equal to one-third of the sentence, accruing to, and
<br />becoming, the period of supervised release." Seifert v. Erickson,
<br />420 N.W.2d 917, 919 (MinD. App. 1988), pet. for rev. denied
<br />(Minn. May 18, 1988). Under MinD. Stat. § 244.04, subeL 1,
<br />appellant's good time reduces his term of imprisonment and accrues
<br />to his supervised release term while the overall length of the
<br />sentence remains unchanged.
<br />Minn. Stat. § 243.18, subd. 1 (1992), which appellant argues is
<br />the applicable section, provides:
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />Every inmate sentenced for any term other than lifc, con-
<br />fined in a state adult correctional facility or on parolc
<br />therefrom, may diminish the term of sentence one day for
<br />eacb two days duringwbich the inmate bas not violated any
<br />facility rule or discipline.
<br />
<br />This section is the pre-sentcncing guid~es good time statute.
<br />State ex reL McMaster v. Benson, 495 N.W.2d 613, 614 (MinD.
<br />App. 1993), pet. for rev. denied (MiDn. Mar. 11, 1993). MinD.
<br />Stat. § 244.04, sub,l. 1, on the other band, applies to inmates
<br />sentenced under the guidelines. See MinD. Stat. § 244.09, subd.
<br />12 (1992) (providing that the guidelines become effective May 1,
<br />1980). Because appellant was sentenced after the guidelines came
<br />into effect, section 244.04, subd. 1, not section 243.18, subd. 1, is
<br />the applicable statute.
<br />Furthermore, the legislature passed an amendment to section
<br />243.18 that clarifies when and how that section is to be applied. 1994
<br />Minn. Laws ch. 636, art. 6, § 28. The amendment states:
<br />
<br />every inmate sentenced before May 1, 1980, for any term .
<br />othcr than life, confined in a state adult correctional facility
<br />or on parolc therefrom, may diminish thc maximnm term
<br />of sentence one day for each two days during which the
<br />inmate has DOt violated any facility rule or disciplinc.
<br />1994 MinD. Laws ch. 636, art. 6, § 9. 1
<br />
<br />1 MiM. Stat. § 243.18, subd. 1 will also be I8numbered as
<br />section 244.04, subd. 18. 1994 Minn. Laws ch. 636, art. 6, § 33.
<br />
<br />The underlined words constitute the added language. This amend-
<br />ment further indicates that Minn. Stat. § 243.18, subd. 1 does not
<br />apply to appellant because he was senteoced after May 1, 1980.
<br />Additionally, MinD. Stat. § 244.05, subd. 1 (1992) provides that:
<br />
<br />every inmatc shall servc a supervised release tenn upon
<br />completion of the inmate's tenn of imprisonment as
<br />reduced by any good timc earned by the inmate.
<br />
<br />This section applies only to inmates who committed crimes on or
<br />after May 1, 1980. 1978 Minn. Laws ch. 7Z3, art. 1, § 20, subd. 2
<br />It requires aU inmates to serve a term of supervised release and,
<br />again, that the inmate's term of imprisonment is reduced by good
<br />time earned. If inmates whose crimes were committed after May 1,
<br />1980, could apply their good time pursuant to section 243.18, subd.
<br />1, they could avoid a term of supervised release. Such a result
<br />
<br />42
<br />
|