Court Opinion

ID: 9724732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:11:01.151245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:05.315456
License: Public Domain

RANDALL, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority and would have affirmed the trial court.
Defendant’s crime was purely economic. The vast majority of appeals under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines arise on cases involving violent and assaultive behavior. Almost all cases taken by the Minnesota Supreme Court and our court have involved defendants appealing upward departures or appealing a trial court’s decision not to depart downward. Appeals by the State generally focus on the refusal of a trial court to depart upwards or the granting of a downward departure in cases involving crimes of violence. Appeals by the State on economic crimes, where the question of incarceration is not in issue,1 and the trial court’s only decision is to shorten the length of a presumptive sentence are rare.
I find nothing in the record which mandates reversal of the deference accorded a trial court on sentencing.
The majority opinion discusses the different factors cited by the trial court at sentencing and in its departure report. I agree that the record is sparse if one looks for all the classic elements to be present for a downward durational departure. Minn. Sentencing Guidelines II.D.2. However, the mitigating factors listed under downward durational departures are of little use in the greater majority of crimes. It is uncommon to see requests for leniency based on a claim that the victim was an aggressor in the incident, or the offender suffered some kind of mental impairment short of not guilty by reason of insanity.
On the other hand, the factors for a trial court to consider on a downward disposi-tional departure are realistic and corroborate the common sense approach of experienced trial courts who fashion appropriate sentences to fit the crime and the offender. In considering a downward dispo-sitional departure, a trial court is free to look at a defendant’s amenability to probation, including age, employment status, family support, receptiveness to recommended chemical dependency or emotional counseling, remorse, restitution, non-violence, cooperativeness, and lack of a prior criminal record. In general, those are the qualities, which indicate whether a defendant has a chance for honest rehabilitation and thus deserving of some leniency. See State v. Biederstedt, 367 N.W.2d 84 (Minn.Ct.App.1985); State v. Ritt, 363 N.W.2d 908 (Minn.Ct.App.1985); State v. Nevins, 359 N.W.2d 66 (Minn.Ct.App.1984); State v. Malinski, 353 N.W.2d 207 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), pet. for rev. denied (Minn.1984).
The guidelines state that “Decisions with respect to disposition and duration are logically separate. Departures with respect to disposition and duration also are logically separate decisions.” Minn. Sentencing Guidelines Commentary II.D.02. I disagree. However, common sense dictates that there must be some reasonable overlap between the factors for a downward durational departure and factors for downward dispositional departure. Some of the same considerations that give a trial court discretion to stay execution of a presumptive sentence of incarceration and place a defendant on probation2 should be allowed to a trial court in deciding that the interests of justice will be served by a sentence shorter than the presumptive.3
The overlap between the two comes into play under mitigating factors for a downward durational departure. II.D.2.a.(4) (“Other substantial grounds exist which tend to excuse or mitigate the offender’s culpability, although not amounting to a defense.”).
The guidelines do not expressly disavow quick and willing restitution as a factor *919relevant to a downward durational departure. Historically, the culpability of a defendant who has been convicted of some form of theft or larceny is mitigated by the offender’s admission of guilt and willingness to make whole those whom he has harmed.
The majority takes the position that on a downward durational departure, restitution is not a mitigating factor either identifiable in the guidelines or recognized by case law. I take the position restitution is at least a mitigating factor which a trial court may consider and, since not expressly excepted by the guidelines or case law, is an allowable factor that a trial court can look at as part of the total picture when considering departing downward.
One of the trial court’s reasons for departure was that respondent had suffered because of the extensive publicity in the news media relating to his position as a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives. The majority argues that the extensive publicity comes under “employment factor” and thus should not be used as a reason for departure. See Minn. Sentencing Guidelines II.D.l.c. I do not believe that the extensive publicity suffered by appellant and his family throughout the case was an “employment factor” in any way favoring appellant. To the contrary, appellant was subjected to much more extensive publicity and public embarrassment than one not an elected official would have been subject to. Thus, I concur with the reasoning of the trial court that appellant’s position as an elected official did not work for him but, in effect, worked against him.
I have previously indicated that the record for appellate review is not as clear cut for or against a downward durational departure as one might hope for. On the other hand, in close cases involving economic crimes where no, one advocates incarceration and the only question is the length of the sentence to hold over respondent’s head while on probation, I would have deferred here to the discretion of the trial court.
I distinguish State v. Cizl, 304 N.W.2d 632 (Minn.1981) on the grounds that Cizl involved burglary, a crime of violence; did not involve the question of substantial restitution as we have here; and the trial court in Cizl used defendant’s voluntary intoxication at the time of the offense as a mitigating factor, which is specifically excluded by the guidelines. II.D.2.a.3.
I would affirm the trial court.

.The State concedes that the presumptive sentence is one year and one day with the trial court free to stay execution or stay imposition and place appellant on probation with whatever terms the court deems reasonable.

. Downward dispositional.

. Downward durational.