Court Opinion

ID: 9884076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:34:59.150514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:35.267480
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority that the imposition of an upward dispositional departure under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, based upon a finding of una-menability to probation, violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. I also concur with the majority that the district court did not violate the Sixth Amendment by assigning appellant a custody-status point in determining appellant’s presumptive sentence.
I part company from the majority as to the remedy, for the reasons expressed in the dissent in State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131,148 (Minn.2005) (Anderson, G. *49Barry, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Having concluded the guidelines are nonseverable, the entire sentencing guidelines regime is unconstitutional and I would instead remand for sentencing under the statutory range for the offense committed.1

. Under the statute, Allen could receive a sentence of imprisonment for not more than seven years, a fine not exceeding $14,000, or both. Minn.Stat. §§ 169A.20, subd. 2; 169A.24 (2004).