Murder is not the way to get a refund when you pay the victim back for burglarizing his mother's place.

2017-M-348            Ryedelle Reginald Loving, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.

BACKGROUND:  Loving was upset after he had paid to compensate R.M. for items Loving had allegedly stolen from R.M. and his mother during a burglary.  A few days later, Loving and his friend E.L encountered R.M., R.M.’s friend brother (Gilbert Jordan) and their friend L.I. at a north Minneapolis gas station.  Both groups purchased gas without a confrontation.  L.E. drove Loving away from the station, but stopped and left the vehicle after a few blocks because Loving was agitated.  Loving returned to the station and fired seven shots.  He killed Jordan and wounded R.M. and L.I.

A jury found Loving guilty, and the district court convicted him, of all six counts. On the attempted-murder counts, the court imposed concurrent sentences of 220 months and 240 months in prison. On the first-degree-premeditated-murder count, the court sentenced Loving to life imprisonment without the possibility of release. The court did not impose separate sentences for any of the three drive-by-shooting counts.

Rather than filing a direct appeal, Loving challenged his convictions by filing a petition for post-conviction relief. The petition raised a number of claims, including the insufficiency of the evidence on all counts, instructional error on the- drive-by-shooting counts, evidentiary error, and a request for the post-conviction court to review the non-testimonial portions of the grand-jury transcript. The post-conviction court denied Loving’s petition in its entirety. Loving appeals the post-conviction court’s decision.

HELD:  The Supreme Court affirmed Loving’s conviction for first-degree premeditated murder and the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release.  It also affirmed his two convictions for the attempted murders of R.M. and  L.I. which had led to sentences of 220 and 240months, respectively.

However, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for vacation of the three duplicative convictions on drive-by counts.  The district court had not imposed sentences for those three convictions.

Here, the Supreme Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant’s convictions of first- degree premeditated murder and attempted first-degree premeditated murder.

The Supreme Court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it limited testimony about the dangerous nature of the location where the shooting occurred.

The Supreme Court finally held that the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to review the non-testimonial portions of the grand-jury transcript.

Stras (Gildea, Anderson, Lillehaug, and Hudson)

               Took No Part:  Chutich and McKeig.

Date: March 22, 2017

[CRIME] [MURDER] [PREMEDITATED] [FIRST-DEGREE] [DRIVE-BY]