default.html.twig template not found for page: /resources/legal-not-so-eze/september-2026In December 2015, after Respondent pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal sexual conduct, he received a stay of imposition and was placed on probation for ten years. The district court found Respondent violated the terms of his probation and, in December 2023, vacated the stay of imposition, sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment, with execution stayed for ten years, and continued his initial ten-year probationary period. Community corrections recommended in September 2025 that Respondent’s sentence be executed for additional probation violations. However, Respondent was discharged from probation in December 2025 after the district court concluded his probation automatically expired on October 1, 2023, based on a 2023 amendment to Minn. Stat. § 609.135, subd. 2.
The amendment modified the maximum periods for stayed sentences for felony convictions, limiting the stay to “not more than five years or the maximum period for which the sentence of imprisonment might have been imposed, whichever is less,” unless the conviction is for certain felonies, including second-degree criminal sexual conduct. In that case, “the stay shall be for not more than four years or the maximum period for which the sentence of imprisonment might have been imposed, whichever is longer.” The probation term of anyone who served five or more years of probation for a felony and is eligible for resentencing under the amended statute is considered to have expired on October 1, 2023, unless the term of the stay of probation would have expired before that date under the original sentence or the length of probation is extended pursuant to section 609.135, subd. 2(h) or (i).
The question in this case is whether the “maximum period for which the sentence of imprisonment might have been imposed” is less than the probationary period that was imposed. The district court concluded the maximum presumptive sentence the district court could impose was the top of the presumptive guidelines sentence and, because that sentence was less than the ten-year probationary period imposed and Respondent had served more than five years on probation when the law took effect, Respondent’s probation automatically expired on October 1, 2023.
The Court of Appeals disagrees with the district court’s interpretation, finding that the “maximum period for which the sentence of imprisonment might have been imposed” unambiguously refers to the statutory maximum sentence. Here, the statutory maximum sentence for Respondent’s conviction is 25 years. Thus, the ten-year probationary period originally imposed was permissible because it was less than the statutory maximum sentence and, because the probationary period was longer than the four-year period in the amended law, the district court erred in determining Respondent’s probation automatically expired on October 1, 2023. The district court’s order discharging Respondent from probation is reversed. State v. Mitchell, A26-0308, 2026 WL 2635273 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2026).