Minnesota DWI Attorney F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Sanchez (Decided October 14, 2024 Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that amenability to treatment is also a basis for the District to depart downward from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.

In Sanchez, the Defendant was found guilty by a jury of Felony DWI.The Defendant moved for a downward dispositional departure, arguing that she was particularly amenable to probation if she received chemical-dependency treatment.

A pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) noted that Sanchez has a lengthy criminal history, including four previous felony DWI convictions. Sanchez was also on probation when she committed the current offense. The PSI did not support a probationary sentence based on Sanchez’s continued use of drugs and alcohol and public-safety concerns. The probation agent recommended the presumptive 75-month prison sentence.

The district court granted Sanchez’s motion, finding that with Sanchez’s participation in DWI court comes a “high degree of monitoring” and “a higher probability” that Sanchez will successfully abstain from drugs and alcohol. Instead, the district court stayed the execution of the sentence for five years.

On appeal, the State argued the district court abused its discretion when it granted the dispositional departure. But the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court stating:

"A district court may depart from the presumptive sentence only when “there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D. 1 (2022). This court reviews a district court’s decision to grant a motion for a dispositional departure for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014). This court will rarely reverse the district court’s decision because of the district court’s considerable discretion in sentencing. Id. at 305, 307-08. We will affirm a district court’s decision “as long as the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a [sentencing] determination.” State v. Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d 77, 81 (Minn. App. 1985)."

"I am going to grant the motion, because in this situation ... I don’t know about particular amenability. ... I don’t know that she’s going to be successful at treatment and stop, but I think there are substantial and compelling reasons and that one of those is she’s going to be monitored very, very, very, very, very closely from DWI Court and any kind of slip¬up, she’s probably going to be back in front of me for a probation violation."

"[T]hings will really be scrutinized if you come back with a probation violation, because you belong in prison, according to the guidelines. And you, just by yourself, are not a person that there should be a departure."

"But you with DWI Court provides a situation where you’ll have exceptional monitoring, potentially monitoring for a longer period than you would if you were in prison, because the probationary period will be for a full five years. And so there’s a much higher probability that you are going to be successful with probation, with the longer supervision and the accountability."

***

"The state argues that the district court should not have granted the departure because it did not find Sanchez particularly amenable to probation. But the district court noted that Sanchez would be very closely monitored and monitored longer than if she went to prison. See State v. Sejnoha, 512 N.W.2d 597, 601 (Minn. App. 1994) (stating that district court did not abuse its discretion by weighing impact of shorter prison sentence with no guarantee of treatment against treatment program and longer, highly structured probation), rev. denied (Minn Apr. 21, 1994). The district court is afforded great discretion, and it carefully considered the sentence."

Moral Of The Story: If a person does not stop driving drunk, they will end up dead or in prison.

If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minnesota DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.

Minnesota DWI Lawyer F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

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.

Minneapolis DWI Attorney F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Kersey (Decided June 7, 2021, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the Court of Appeals is not going to second guess the District Court's sentence for Felony DWI if the sentence is within the sentencing guidelines.

In Kersey the Defendant pled guilty to Felony DWI arising from a 2019 DWI arrest.  It was the Defendant's second Felony DWI conviction and fifth DWI conviction overall.  The Defendant moved for a dispositional departure instead of the presumptive prison sentence of 42 months.

The district court imposed a presumptive sentence, reasoning that the probation department did not recommend probation and that “all of the good things” Kersey had done in his life had to be weighed “against the public policy . . . that dictates accountability for this offense.” The district court sentenced Kersey to serve 42 months in prison with a five-year period of conditional release. 

The Defendant appealed the presumptive sentence but the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court noting:

"A sentence that is prescribed by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines is “presumed” appropriate. State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 308 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted). A district court may depart from a presumptive sentence only if “identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances” warrant a departure. State v. Solberg, 882 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). If a defendant requests a downward dispositional departure, that is, a probationary sentence instead of a prison sentence, a district court focuses on the defendant and considers whether he is particularly amenable to probation. State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982) (stating that in assessing whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, a district court may consider age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in court, and support of family and friends). But even if the record shows that the defendant would be amenable to probation, a district court is not required to depart from the presumptive sentence. State v. Olson, 765 N.W.2d 662, 664-65 (Minn. App. 2009)."

***

"Kersey contends that he presented “substantial evidence meeting the Trog factors,” along with documentation “of his medical condition, which [is] comprised of an immuno¬compromising condition particularly susceptible to threat from the COVID-19 virus.” He claims that his “condition along with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic presented a substantial risk of harm or death to [himself] if confined to prison.” Kersey argues that although the district court gave “significant consideration to the character evidence presented,” the court “appeared to downplay the threats that his medical condition and the COVID-19 pandemic posed to [his] safety and well-being ... in a prison setting." 

***

The record shows "the district court considered Kersey's arguments related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the district court also considered the reasons weighing against a dispositional departure."

***

"A district court is not required to depart from the presumptive sentence even if mitigating factors are present. See State v. Jackson, 749 N.W.2d 353, 360 (Minn. 2008) (stating that if a jury finds facts supporting a departure, a district court may, but is not required to, depart); State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006) (affirming denial of a request for departure despite defendant’s argument that Trog factors were present); State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251, 253-54 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that the mere existence of mitigating factors does not require the district court to place a defendant on probation). Here, the district court considered the arguments for and against a downward dispositional departure and concluded that a presumptive sentence was appropriate. This is not the “rare case” that warrants reversal of the district court’s refusal to grant a downward dispositional departure."

Moral Of The Story: While it is important to know the law, it is more important to know your judge.

If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.