(a) If an inmate of a state correctional facility is convicted of violating section 609.221, 609.222, 609.223, 609.2231, or 609.224, while confined in the facility, the sentence imposed for the assault shall be executed and run consecutively to any unexpired portion of the offender's earlier sentence. The inmate is not entitled to credit against the sentence imposed for the assault for time served in confinement for the earlier sentence. The inmate shall serve the sentence for the assault in a state correctional facility even if the assault conviction was for a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor.
(b) If an inmate of a county jail, county regional jail, county work farm, county workhouse, or other local correctional facility is convicted of violating section 609.221, 609.222, 609.223, or 609.2231 while confined in the facility and the victim is a county sheriff or sheriff's deputy, the court must not stay adjudication or imposition of the sentence and the inmate must be sentenced as follows:
(1) if the inmate was serving an executed sentence at the time of the assault, the sentence imposed for the assault shall be executed and run consecutively to that sentence;
(2) if the court imposes an executed sentence for any crime or offense for which the person was in custody when the person committed the assault, the sentence imposed for the assault shall be executed and run consecutively to that sentence; and
(3) if the inmate was serving a probationary sentence or the court imposes a stayed sentence for any crime or offense for which the person was in custody when the person committed the assault, the sentence imposed for the assault shall be executed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 2011–2015 · leading case:
Johnson v. State, 820 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012).
Johnson v. State, 820 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 54× “Johnson challenges the district court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief, asserting that the district court erred in concluding that Minn. Stat. § 609.2232 mandated a consecutive sentence for an assault he committed while serving a Washington state sentence at a…”
Washington v. State, 845 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 8× “” See Minn.Stat. § 609.2232 (2004). The district court construed Washington’s third claim as a request for postconviction relief because it attacked the validity of his underlying conviction and concluded that it was procedurally barred.”
State v. Haggins, 798 N.W.2d 86 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
“§ 609.2232 (2008) (requiring an executed consecutive sentence for conviction of fourth-degree assault of a correctional officer); Minn.”
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Wayne Blaschka, No. A13-1718 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2014).
· cites it 12× “At the sentencing hearing, the state argued that appellant should be sentenced in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 609.2232 (2012), providing that, if an inmate of a state correctional facility is convicted of, among other offenses, a violation of section 609.”
State of Minnesota v. David Lee King, No. A14-838 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 20, 2015).
· cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 609.2232 (2012). 6 Because we conclude that the district court properly imposed a consecutive sentence under a plain reading of the statute, we conclude that appellant is not entitled to relief on his direct appeal from a judgment of conviction.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.