State v. Thompson

• Docket Number: A22-0192
• Decision Date: 30 August 2023
• Parties: State of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Stafon Edward Thompson, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

1

State of Minnesota, Appellant,
v.
Stafon Edward Thompson, Respondent.

No. A22-0192

Supreme Court of Minnesota

August 30, 2023

Hennepin County Office of Appellate Courts

Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and

Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Sarah J. Vokes, Mark V. Griffin, Assistant County Attorneys, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant.

Rachel Moran, University of Saint Thomas Legal Services Clinic, Ka Bao Jennrich, Ashley Fischer, Kimberly Meyer, Certified Student Attorneys, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent.

SYLLABUS

We 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).

2

OPINION

MOORE, III, JUSTICE.

Appellant State of Minnesota argues that the Hennepin County District Court abused its discretion when it granted respondent Stafon Edward Thompson postconviction relief by ordering a substantive sentencing hearing. Thompson's postconviction petition requested a substantive sentencing hearing to consider whether Thompson's modified sentences of life in prison with the possibility of release should be served consecutively or concurrently. Irrespective of the district court's authority to order this relief, 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). Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS

In 2009, a jury found Stafon Edward Thompson guilty of two counts of first-degree murder in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.185(a)(1) (2022) for the premeditated killings of Katricia Daniels and her 10-year-old son Robert Shepard.^[1] Thompson was 17 years old when he committed the offenses. At that time, Minnesota's sentencing statutes mandated that Thompson receive two sentences of life in prison without the possibility of release. See Minn. Stat. § 609.106, subd. 2(1) (2008). However, the district court had discretion in

3

whether to impose the two mandatory sentences consecutively or concurrently. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F.2.b (2008).

The district court proceeded to sentencing immediately after the jury returned its verdicts, without ordering a presentence investigation report. Five family members provided victim impact statements to the court. Thompson's counsel made no argument on the issue of whether Thompson's sentences should be imposed consecutively or concurrently. The district court sentenced Thompson to two consecutive sentences of life in prison without the possibility of release. We affirmed Thompson's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Thompson (Thompson I), 788 N.W.2d 485, 496 (Minn. 2010).

Thompson's co-defendant, Brian Flowers, was also convicted of two counts of premeditated murder under aiding and abetting theories of liability for the deaths of Daniels and Shepard. Flowers was 16 years old when he committed the offenses. Like Thompson, the district court sentenced Flowers to two consecutive sentences of life in prison without the possibility of release. We affirmed Flowers's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Flowers (Flowers I), 788 N.W.2d 120, 134 (Minn. 2010).

In 2012, the United States Supreme Court announced in Miller v. Alabama that the mandatory imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release for a juvenile offender violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. 567 U.S. 460, 479 (2012). The following year, both Thompson and Flowers filed federal habeas corpus petitions challenging their mandatory sentences of life in prison

4

without the possibility of release under the new constitutional rule of law announced in Miller. From here, the co-defendants' cases took different paths.

In 2014, a federal district court judge granted Flowers's habeas petition, finding that Miller applied retroactively. Flowers v. Roy, No. CIV. 13-1508, 2014 WL 1757898, at *5-9 (D. Minn. May 1, 2014). The federal district court remanded Flowers's case to the state district court for resentencing without any limitations on the scope of the resentencing hearing. The state district court resentenced Flowers to two concurrent sentences of life in prison with the possibility of release after 30 years.^[2] In doing so, the district court determined that Miller and our decision in Jackson v. State, 883 N.W.2d 272, 281-82 (Minn. 2016), limited its discretion to impose the sentences consecutively. We reversed and remanded the case to the district court "to exercise its discretion to determine whether consecutive or concurrent sentences are appropriate." Flowers v. State (Flowers II), 907 N.W.2d 901, 907-08 (Minn. 2018). Flowers's resentencing is currently proceeding in state district court.

The same year that Flowers's habeas petition was granted, a different federal district court judge...