Opinion ID: 2114044
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: 20-year sentence

Text: Smallwood's last claim is that the 20-year sentence imposed unduly exaggerates the seriousness of Smallwood's past criminal record, the conduct underlying his offense, and his dangerousness to the public. Generally, we will not interfere with a trial court's discretion in sentencing unless the sentence is disproportionate to the offense. See State v. Schantzen, 308 N.W.2d 484, 487 (Minn. 1981). A determination of whether a departure is justified will be based on our collective collegial experience in reviewing a large number of criminal appeals from all the judicial districts. State v. Stirens, 506 N.W.2d 302, 305-06 (Minn.1993) (quoting State v. Norton, 328 N.W.2d 142, 146-47 (Minn.1982)). Here, Smallwood does not dispute that the trial court had the discretion under the dangerous offender statute to depart from the sentencing guidelines to impose the statutory maximum. Instead, Smallwood contends the sentence unfairly exaggerates his criminal record and the seriousness of the crime. The presumptive sentence for Smallwood's burglary conviction under the sentencing guidelines was 54 months. Peter D. Marston, the psychologist who prepared an evaluation of Smallwood on behalf of the state, held little hope of Smallwood undergoing successful treatment for his chemical dependency problems and stated that Smallwood was highly likely to reoffend. Marston also stated that Smallwood has developed a sexual component in his burglary actions. Finally, Marston recommended Smallwood's segregation from society and protection of the community from him. Linda Van Broeke-Pierce, a psychologist retained by Smallwood's defense counsel, also examined Smallwood. Van Broeke-Pierce recommended an intensive residential chemical dependency program, sexuality counseling, and vocational training. Van Broeke-Pierce also noted the sexual nature of Smallwood's actions, writing: Curtis has, at times, convinced himself that the women he has encountered in his burglaries are somehow going to magically turn into females who want relationships with him, including sexual relationships. Curtis is not a rapist, but he has significant female relationship and sexuality issues that could benefit from treatment. The sentencing court found that Smallwood lacked control over his behavior. The court also noted a pattern of increasing dangerousness. Further, the fact that Smallwood touched and rubbed the body of the victim was found to be an aggravating factor by the sentencing court. Smallwood argues that the aggravating factor, the sexual component of the crime, would normally justify a doubling of the presumptive sentence. See State v. Evans, 311 N.W.2d 481, 483 (Minn.1981) (explaining that for court to impose more than double the presumed sentence, unusually compelling circumstances must exist). Smallwood relies upon the court of appeals' decision in State v. Kimmons to demonstrate his sentence is unfair. 502 N.W.2d 391 (Minn.App.1993). In Kimmons, the court of appeals reduced the sentence of defendant who was convicted of robbery and had prior convictions for three burglaries, a first-degree robbery, two second-degree robberies, a third-degree criminal mischief, an assault with intent to do bodily harm, and four misdemeanors. The defendant qualified as a dangerous offender and was sentenced to 108 months. Id. [9] While we acknowledge that Smallwood's sentence represents a more than quadruple departure from the sentencing guidelines, under the dangerous offender statute the trial court was within its discretion in imposing a 240-month sentence. The trial court found that Smallwood was engaged in a continuous pattern of criminal conduct since reaching [his] adulthood. After a careful review of the record combined with our collective experience reviewing criminal appeals from across the state, we are convinced that a 240-month sentence is not disproportionate given Smallwood's criminal history, the seriousness of the crime of conviction, and the results of the presentence investigation. Therefore, we affirm the sentence of the trial court. Reversed.