Court Opinion

ID: 9656410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:47:52.304498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:32.260174
License: Public Domain

KELLEY, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I am in agreement with the majority that substantial and compelling circumstances exist for departure from the presumptive sentence for this crime. Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, 1.4 and IID (1981). I likewise concur in the court’s conclusion that the statutory maximum sentence imposed by the trial court was excessive in this case. In my view, the expanded limitations propounded in State v. Stumm, 312 N.W.2d 248 (Minn.1981), should apply rather than the doubling limitation pronounced in State v. Evans, 311 N.W.2d 481 (Minn.1981). The only significant dif*888ference between this case and Stumm that I can see is that the assaulted child in Stumm died — admittedly a much more tragic consequence than exists in this case. In both cases, however, adult custodians assaulted very small, vulnerable children; in both cases, there was unusual cruelty inflicted on the victims; and in both cases, the assaulter exhibited indifference toward caring for the child after the assault. In Stumm, we approved a durational departure approximately 3½ times the length of the presumptive sentence called for by the Guidelines.1 In my opinion, the departure in this case should be at least 2½ times the presumptive sentence, which is less than one-half of the statutory maximum.

. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 84 months (7 years), the maximum permitted by statute.