Do not announce your plans for murder to several witnesses!

2015-M-296       Jerome Deon Nunn, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

THE CRIME:  Nunn suspected that Abdul Poe and John Holmes had stolen $20,000 and a pound of marijuana from Nunn's apartment.  On July 22, 1995, Nunn confronted them at a liquor store on West Broadway in north Minneapolis.  Nunn shot Poe multiple times and shot a fleeing Holmes in the back.  Holmes survived and several witnesses identified Nunn.  Before the murder, Nunn had told Holmes and several other witnesses of his murderous plans.

In December 1995, a jury found petitioner Jerome Deon Nunn guilty of firstdegree premeditated murder, Minn. Stat. § 609.185(1) (2014), and attempted first-degree premeditated murder, Minn. Stat. §§ 609.17, 609.185(1) (2014).  After entering a judgment of conviction for each offense, the district court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of release for the first-degree murder offense and a consecutive sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment for the attempted first-degree murder offense. 

Nunn appealed his convictions in 1996, challenging the district court’s admission of certain evidence.  We affirmed Nunn’s convictions.  State v. Nunn, 561 N.W.2d 902, 909 (Minn. 1997). 

Nunn petitioned for post-conviction relief in July 2007, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct.  The post-conviction court denied Nunn’s petition, and we affirmed.  Nunn v. State, 753 N.W.2d 657, 664 (Minn. 2008).

 In 2014, Nunn moved to correct his sentence under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, arguing that the consecutive sentence imposed for his conviction of attempted first-degree murder is not authorized by Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F (1995).  Nunn also argued that his sentence violates his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  In support of his equal protection claim, Nunn, who is African American, argued that his sentence is more severe than the sentences of other similarly situated offenders who are not African American. 

 

The post-conviction court denied Nunn’s motion, concluding that Nunn received a lawful sentence under Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F.  The post-conviction court also determined that, because Nunn failed to produce any evidence of purposeful discrimination in support of his equal protection claim, he was not entitled to relief on that ground.  Nunn appeals the denial of his motion to correct his sentence.

The post-conviction court’s denial of Nunn’s motion to correct his sentence was not based on an erroneous application of the law, nor was it against logic or the facts in the record.  The post-conviction court’s ruling is consistent with our decision in Townsend, 834 N.W.2d at 739-40, and the United States Supreme Court’s decision in McCleskey, 481 U.S. at 293-97.  Because the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion by denying Nunn’s motion to correct his sentence, we affirm.

Wright (Gildea, Anderson, Dietzen, Stras, and Lillehaug)

[MURDER]

A14-1767,