The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Anderson (decided March 27, 2023, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a sentence within the sentencing guidelines is not going to be disturbed on appeal.
In Anderson, the Defendant was charged with felony DWI as his alcohol concentration level was over the legal limit and he had a prior felony DWI from 2006. (Once a felony, always a felony unless the felony DWI is from another state). Mr. Anderson subsequently pled guilty and the district court ordered a pre-sentence investigation (PSI). The probation officer who authored the PSI report recommended that the district court impose a prison sentence of 54 months (the fixed sentence duration within the applicable sentencing range of 46 to 64 months), stay execution of the sentence, place Anderson on probation, and order him to serve one year in jail.
The district court conducted a sentencing hearing in June 2022. The state requested that the district court impose an executed prison sentence of 48 months. The prosecutor noted that Anderson has five prior DWI convictions and two prior felony convictions, that Anderson’s alcohol concentration was more than twice the 0.08 threshold at the time of the offense, that he was driving in heavy traffic, and that his offense occurred only six months after he was charged with another felony DWI offense in Washington County. The prosecutor acknowledged that Anderson had remained sober while charges were pending but attributed his sobriety to the fact that he was subject to random testing.
Anderson’s attorney requested a downward dispositional departure on the ground that Anderson is particularly amenable to probation. Based on the information in the PSI report, Anderson’s attorney argued that Anderson had been sober for many years between his 2006 DWI conviction and his mid-2020 arrest for DWI in Washington County and had maintained sobriety again since being charged there. The attorney explained that, at the time of the offense in this case, Anderson was unemployed and had lost his home but that he since had regained employment and housing and was attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings three times per week. The attorney introduced four letters of support written by persons who have attended AA meetings with Anderson.
The district court stated that it had read the letters of support and had “spent a lot of time looking at this and thinking about it.” The district court commended Anderson for doing well on probation for the Washington County offense. But the district court emphasized the fact that this is Anderson’s third felony DWI conviction. The district court noted its concern for public safety and stated that, in committing the current offense, Anderson had endangered others. The district court concluded by finding that Anderson is not particularly amenable to probation and that there are no substantial and compelling mitigating circumstances. Accordingly, the district court denied Anderson’s request for a downward dispositional departure and imposed an executed sentence of 48 months of imprisonment.
On Appeal, the Defendant argued that the district court erred by not exercising discretion in denying his request for a downward dispositional departure. He asserted that the district court did not consider the mitigating facts contained in the PSI report and, instead, focused on the fact that this offense is Anderson’s third felony DWI conviction. He relies on this court’s opinion in State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262 (Minn. App. 1984), in which the court remanded for reconsideration after concluding that the district court had not considered all relevant mitigating factors.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court noting:
"The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines generally provide for presumptive sentences for felony offenses. Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.C (2020). For any particular offense, the presumptive sentence is “presumed to be appropriate for all typical cases sharing criminal history and offense severity characteristics.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 1.B.13 (2020). Accordingly, a district court “must pronounce a sentence . . . within the applicable [presumptive] range . . . unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D. 1 (2020)."
"The sentencing guidelines provide non-exclusive lists of mitigating and aggravating factors that may justify a departure. See Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3 (2020). One of the listed mitigating factors is “particular amenability to probation.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a(7). In determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, a district court may consider, among other factors, “the defendant’s . . . prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d28, 31 (Minn. 1982)."
"This case is meaningfully different from Curtiss. In that case, the district court stated that there was “no justifiable reason” to depart from the presumptive sentence. Id. at 263. We determined that the district court had “abandoned” the possibility of a downward dispositional departure without “comparing reasons for and against.” Id. In this case, in contrast, the district court expressly mentioned the facts that Anderson’s attorney had cited in his argument for a departure, such as Anderson’s renewed sobriety, his success on probation in the Washington County case, and the letters of support submitted on his behalf. The record shows that the district court did consider the mitigating factors that might support a departure but determined that they did not outweigh other factors and did not allow a finding of substantial and compelling reasons for a departure. The district court did not abuse its discretion in doing so."
Moral Of The Story: If you do the crime, you are presumed to do the time.
If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minnesota DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment