Supreme Court Digest: Aug. 30, 2023

Criminal

Postconviction Relief

Sentencing Hearings

The State argued that the District Court abused its discretion when it granted petitioner postconviction relief by ordering a substantive sentencing hearing. Petitioner’s postconviction petition requested a substantive sentencing hearing to consider whether petitioner’s modified sentences of life in prison with the possibility of release should be served consecutively or concurrently.

The Supreme Court concluded that it need not decide whether the district court erred in concluding that petitioner was entitled to postconviction relief in the form of a substantive sentencing hearing because the unique circumstances of this case would warrant the exercise of this court’s inherent supervisory powers to direct that the district court hold a substantive sentencing hearing in accordance with State v. Warren, 592 N.W.2d 440, 451–52 (Minn. 1999). Affirmed.

A22-0192 State v. Thompson (Hennepin County)

Orders

General Rules of Practice

Amendments

The Supreme Court promulgated amendments to these rules including updating decorum and hearing format rules to reflect oneCourtMN Hearing Initiative recommendations, updating Jury Management Rules to reflect current policy and practice developments, updating the Expedited Process Rules to reflect current practices, and housekeeping-related updates. The vast majority of the amendments are effective November 22, 2023.

ADM09-8009 Order Promulgating Amends. to Minn. Gen. R. Prac.