State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Brian Robert Rossini, Appellant.

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (1996).

 STATE OF MINNESOTA

 IN COURT OF APPEALS

 C4-96-1876

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Danny Robert Dunham, petitioner,

Appellant.

 Filed February 11, 1997

 Affirmed

 Klaphake, Judge

Dakota County District Court

File No. K4-94-1168

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; James Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Patrick T. Skelly, Assistant County Attorney, 1079 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033-2392 (for Respondent)

Danny Robert Dunham, 1101 Linden Lane, Faribault, MN 55021-6400 (Appellant Pro Se)

Considered and decided by Amundson, Presiding Judge, Schumacher, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.

 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

 KLAPHAKE, Judge

Pro se appellant Danny Robert Dunham was convicted of four felony offenses stemming from breaking into his ex-wife's house and assaulting her on June 19, 1984. In this appeal, he challenges the court's imposition of a 96-month executed sentence and a $3,481 fine for the burglary conviction. Because the sentencing issues Dunham raises were or could have been raised in his previous postconviction appeal, we affirm.

 D E C I S I O N

Appellant claims that the court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence that amounted to a double durational departure from the presumptive sentence. This precise issue was raised and decided in appellant's first postconviction appeal. See State v. Dunham, No. C3-95-871 (Minn. App. Jan. 24, 1996) (affirming sentencing departure and reversing restitution order), review denied (Minn. Mar. 19, 1996). "[W]here a postconviction petitioner brings 'a second or successive petition for similar relief,' the district court may summarily deny relief." Crisler v. State, 520 N.W.2d 22, 24 (Minn. App. 1994) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (1992)), review denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 1994); Piringer v. State, 388 N.W.2d 31, 32 (Minn. App. 1986) (no error found in trial court's summary denial of postconviction petition where resentencing issue raised in first postconviction appeal). Thus, the postconviction court properly declined to address this issue.

Appellant also contends the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a fine of $3,481. Although this precise issue was not raised in appellant's first postconviction appeal, we conclude that it could have been raised in that appeal with the other sentencing issues. See Berg v. State, 403 N.W.2d 316, 318 (Minn. App. 1987) (court may decline to hear issues that could have been raised in previous postconviction appeal), review denied (Minn. May 18, 1987). We therefore decline to decide this issue.

  Affirmed.