Court Opinion

ID: 9655343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:08:16.649572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:17.869391
License: Public Domain

MEYER, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would hold that the district court erred in relying on two of the three aggravating factors to support an upward departure in Taylor’s sentence, and remand for reconsideration of the departure in light of the remaining factor.
I would analyze this case under our well-accepted principle of appellate review that a district court’s sentencing departure is evaluated for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Thao, 649 N.W.2d 414, 421 (Minn.2002) (stating decision to depart from presumptive sentence is within district court’s discretion if substantial and compelling reasons are articulated); State v. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65, 68 (Minn.2002) (stating district court’s decision to depart will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion); State v. Pickett, 358 N.W.2d 38, 39 (Minn.1984) (stating decision to depart is for the trial court to exercise). This discretion is no mere formality. As with evidentiary issues, the trial judge “sits with a unique perspective on all stages of a case, including sentencing, and the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate the offender’s conduct and weigh sentencing options.” State v. Hough, 585 N.W.2d 393, 397 (Minn.1998).
Here, I concur with the majority’s view that two of the factors — the age of the victim and the abuse of a position of trust — were impermissible reasons for departure. I would not conclude, however, that the multiple incidents of abuse that occurred in this case cannot support an upward departure.
The complaint against Taylor noted that the victim in this case, three-year-old L.E.P., disclosed that Taylor’s assaults on her had “happened more than one time.” The majority offers a number of reasons why Taylor’s admission of multiple incidents of abuse cannot support an upward departure. The decision notes that a sentencing court may not rely upon offenses that do not form the basis of a conviction. See, e.g., State v. Hagen, 317 N.W.2d 701, 703 (Minn.1982). Similarly, the majority asserts that a durational departure may *591not be based upon the possibility that the defendant could have been convicted of an uncharged offense. State v. Simon, 520 N.W.2d 393, 394 (Minn.1994). Finally, the majority, relying upon State v. Arnold, 514 N.W.2d 801, 802 (Minn.1994), holds that Taylor cannot be deprived of the bargain of his guilty plea by the trial court’s reliance on underlying conduct supporting a dismissed charge.
This last reason is the easiest to dismiss. Arnold involved a defendant charged with five offenses committed during three robberies. 514 N.W.2d at 801. One of the robberies involved an allegation that Arnold had sexually touched the victim during the crime. Id. Arnold entered into a plea bargain in which he admitted to the robberies in exchange for dismissal of the sex offense charge, a charge that he had consistently denied. Id. In sentencing Arnold, the trial court departed upward and based the departure on the allegation Arnold had sexually touched a victim during the robbery. 514 N.W.2d at 802. The situation in Arnold, then, was one where the trial court impermissibly relied upon a dismissed allegation — the dismissal of which was part and parcel of the plea bargain.
Such a scenario is obviously not the case here. Unlike Arnold, during his plea hearing Taylor admitted to another earlier incident. It was therefore no mere unproven allegation, as was the case in Arnold. Moreover, our concern in Arnold centered around the fact that the trial court’s action essentially deprived Arnold of the benefit of his plea bargain. Arnold at 801-02. Here, Taylor received a sentence within the range he bargained for.
The majority’s reliance on State v. Peterson is similarly misplaced. In Peterson, the defendant was charged with criminal sexual conduct, and Spreigl evidence was introduced to show that Peterson had used his position of authority to induce young people to have sexual contact with him. 329 N.W.2d 58, 59 (Minn.1983). In sentencing Peterson, the trial court imposed consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences. Id. The trial court stated on the record that the consecutive sentence was permissible because Peterson had used his position of authority to induce both the victim of the charged offense and the victims of the Spreigl offenses. Id. We reversed, stating that “in relying on the Spreigl offenses, the trial court relied on other offenses with which defendant apparently was not charged and of which defendant was not convicted.” Id. at 60.
Taylor’s case is dissimilar. In contrast to the facts set forth in Peterson, proof of Taylor’s earlier criminal sexual conduct was provided not by untested, uncharged, possibly disputed Spreigl evidence relating to victims other than L.E.P., but instead by Taylor’s own admission at his plea hearing that he had assaulted L.E.P. on more than one occasion.
A third case relied upon by the majority, State v. Simon, is also inapposite. In Simon, the defendant pled guilty to second-degree assault after shooting his victim. Simon, 520 N.W.2d at 393-94. Second-degree assault, however, contains two statutory provisions, one of which is less severe than the other as it does not include the element of substantial bodily harm. Id. at 394. See also Minn.Stat. § 609.222 (1992). Simon was charged under the less severe provision. Simon, 520 N.W.2d at 394. At Simon’s sentencing, however, the state requested the trial court to impose a sentence double that of the presumptive sentence and to base the departure on the fact that the assault resulted in substantial bodily harm to the victim. Id.
In reversing, we noted that we disapproved of the state’s actions and indicated that prosecutors were not free to circum*592vent the strictures of the sentencing guidelines by charging Simon under a less serious provision and then using an element of the more serious provision to request an enhancement for sentencing. Id. We further cautioned that “the state should not be able to use the fact that it might have been able to obtain a conviction of a greater offense * * * to support the departure.” Id. Thus, Simon is most properly read as a caution against deliberate undercharging by the state.
There is no allegation that undercharging is what occurred here. Certainly L.E.P.’s allegation appears in the complaint, but there is no contention before us that Taylor could have been convicted of both crimes. Taylor was not charged under a different statutory provision that considers multiple incidents as an element, nor could he have been. That provision, Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. l(h)(iii) (2002), applies only to those individuals who have a “significant relationship” to the victim, defined as relatives or adults who reside, at least intermittently, in the same dwelling as the victim. See Minn.Stat. § 609.341, subd. 16 (2002). So, unlike Peterson, this is not a case where Taylor would serve a longer sentence if charged under another applicable provision. Quite simply, there was no other applicable provision.
The majority correctly notes that generally “the sentencing court may not consider evidence that points to the defendant’s guilt of some other offense but does not support the conclusion that the defendant committed the instant offense, for which he is being sentenced.” State v. Cermak, 344 N.W.2d 833, 837 (Minn.1984); see also State v. Ott, 341 N.W.2d 883, 884 (Minn.1984). However, this does not necessarily suggest that the sentencing judge’s reliance on the prior uncharged assault was improper. If the defendant admits to the underlying conduct, a sentencing court may generally consider the course of conduct underlying an offense including uncharged conduct “in order to reach the conclusion that the defendant’s conduct was sufficiently serious to justify the departure.” Cermak, 344 N.W.2d at 838. In this case, Taylor admitted to committing the earlier assault. The uncharged assault involved the same victim and the same behavior, and occurred within approximately a month of the second assault. These facts are sufficient to permit consideration of the earlier assault as part of Taylor’s course of conduct. It seems ironic and incongruent that by today’s holding we allow for upward durational departures for multiple penetrations of one victim over the course of several hours, while barring upward durational departures for admitted sexual contact of one victim occurring on separate days.
Accordingly, I would hold that an upward durational departure was appropriate, but would remand and direct the district court to reconsider the sentence without regard to the factors of age of the victim and the abuse of a position of trust.