State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Daniel Lynn Conley, Appellant.
ResetAAFont size:PrintShareThis
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Daniel Lynn Conley, Appellant.
A11–278
-- February 06, 2012
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Stoneburner, Judge. Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and John Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Mark Nathan Lystig, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent) David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, G. Tony Atwal, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
In this appeal following resentencing after remand, appellant argues that (1) the admissible evidence presented to the Blakely sentencing jury was insufficient to support its findings; (2) the 300–month sentence imposed for his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct is unsupported by evidence in the record; and (3) unduly exaggerates the criminality of his conduct. Because the evidence is sufficient to support the Blakely jury's findings, the findings support the upward sentencing departure, and the sentence does not unduly exaggerate the criminality of the offense, we affirm.
FACTS
In June 2003, appellant Daniel Lynn Conley was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.342, subds. 1(e), 2 (2002), third-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.344, subds. 1(c), 2 (2002), solicitation, inducement, and promotion of prostitution in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.322, subd. 1a(1) (2002), and second-degree assault in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1 (2002). The district court imposed 300 months in prison for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, representing an upward departure from the then-presumptive guideline sentence of 158 months, and consecutive sentences of 18 and 36 months for the prostitution and assault convictions. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the convictions but reversed and remanded for resentencing consistent with the requirements of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). State v. Conley, No. A03–1669, 2004 WL 2283421 (Minn.App. Oct. 12, 2004).
- See more at:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-court-....EpWnB6lC.dpuf