Minnesota Supreme Court, 1982

Rupert v. State

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 16, 1982 · Amdahl

322 N.W.2d 186; 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1647 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Larry Hammerling, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., and Gary Hansen, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, John P. Dimich, County Atty., Grand Rapids, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision

Minn. Stat. § 590.01 — amended 1983

Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Minnesota statutes cited

Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.

Minn. Stat. § 590.01

Opinion of the Court

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by Elmer Lee Rupert from an order of the Itasca County District Court denying his petition for postconviction relief in the form of resentencing according to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 590.01, subd. 3 (Supp. 1981). We affirm.

Petitioner, who is 20, seeks resentencing in connection with 1980 convictions of burglary and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, for which he received consecutive 5-year and 3-year prison terms. Those terms were also consecutive to a previously imposed 5-year prison term. Petitioner’s expected release date is December 17, 1983, and his sentence expiration dates are October 3,1986, and October 4,1988.

*187Petitioner’s criminal history score at the time of sentencing in 1980 would have been four. The burglary offense, which is the more serious of the two, is a severity level IV offense. The presumptive sentence for this offense by one with a criminal history score of four is 25 months in prison. If petitioner were resentenced to the presumptive sentence, he apparently would be entitled to immediate release from prison.

Given petitioner’s record of recidivism and his chemical dependency, we believe that the district court was justified in concluding that petitioner is likely to engage in criminal conduct after his release from prison. In any event, the state did not have to prove such a likelihood. Rather, petitioner had the burden of proving that his early release from sentence would not present a danger to the public and would not be incompatible with the welfare of society, and he failed to meet that burden. State v. Champion, 319 N.W.2d 21 (Minn. 1982).

Petitioner remains subject to the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Corrections Board or its successor.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.