Monday, June 7, 2021

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The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Kersey (Decided June 7, 2021, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the Court of Appeals is not going to second guess the District Court's sentence for Felony DWI if the sentence is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




No comments:

Post a Comment