State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1084

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Victor Arden Barnard,
Appellant.

Filed January 22, 2019
Reversed and remanded
Klaphake, Judge*

Pine County District Court
File No. 58-CR-14-283

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

Reese Frederickson, Pine County Attorney, Pine City, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Amy Law ler, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and
Klaphake, Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Victor Arden Barnard challenges his sentence , arguing that the district
court erred by increasing the amount of his fines on remand. Because a district court may
not impose a greater sentence on remand than the sentence originally imposed, we reverse
and remand for imposition of fines in an amount equal to the fines imposed in Barnard’s
original sentence.
D E C I S I O N
The supreme court has held that, as a matter of judicial policy, Minnesota courts
may not impose a more severe sentence after a case has been remanded for a new trial.
State v. Holmes, 161 N.W.2d 650, 652 (Minn. 1968).1 The supreme court adopted the view
“that any increase in penalty upon a retrial inevitably discourages a convicted defendant
from exercising his legal rights and is contrary to public policy .” Id. at 653. In State v.
Prudhomme, the supreme court extended this rule to resentencing on remand after an
appeal. The court found this difference “insignificant” and held that to allow the imposition
of a greater sentence than that originally imposed would “violate the spirit of the Holmes
case,” 228 N.W.2d 243, 245-46 (Minn. 1975).

1 We note that in State v. Vang , Justice Stras argued in a concurring opinion that the
supreme court should overrule Holmes and follow federal precedent, which allows
imposing a greater sentence on remand under certain circumstances. 847 N.W.2d 248, 269
(Minn. 2014) (Stras, J. concurring). However, the majority opinion declined to reach that
issue, and Holmes remains binding precedent in Minnesota. Id.

3
In this case, Barnard pleaded guilty to two counts of c riminal sexual conduct. The
district court originally sentenced Barnard to consecutive 180-month prison terms for each
count, an upward durational departure, and a $50 fine for each count. Barnard appealed
the length of his sentence, and we reversed his sentence and remanded for imposition of a
guideline sentence. State v. Barnard , A17-0116, 2017 WL 5559905, at *3 (Minn. App.
Nov. 20, 2017), review denied (Minn. Jan. 24, 2018). On remand, the district court
sentenced Barnard to consecutive 144-month prison terms for each count and increased his
fines to $12 ,000 on each count . This increase in Barnard’s fines is not permitted under
Holmes and Prudhomme. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the district court to
impose a $50 fine for each count, in accordance with the fine s imposed in appellant’s
original sentence.
Reversed and remanded.