State v. Beaman
Annotate this CaseAfter a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of rape and aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Appellant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred by imposing lifetime postrelease supervision instead of parole and by imposing electronic monitoring as a parole condition. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Appellant's convictions; (2) vacated that portion of Appellant's sentence imposing postrelease supervision for the rape conviction, as the district court should have only sentenced Appellant to a life sentence with no parole for twenty-five years for the conviction, not lifetime postrelease supervision, and remanded to the district court for a nunc pro tunc order to correct a portion of the journal entry to delete reference to electronic monitoring, as the sentencing court did not have authority to impose such parole conditions; and (3) affirmed the remainder of Appellant's sentence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.