Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Sentencing Guidelines Commission presenter urges steps to avoid unintended departures in Minnesota sentences
Loading...
Summary
A presenter for the Sentencing Guidelines Commission warned that documentation errors, unverified out‑of‑state priors and missed modifiers often cause unintended sentencing departures and recommended using criminal history summaries and reviewed worksheets to reduce reversals and mis‑sentencing.
A presenter speaking for the Sentencing Guidelines Commission told attendees that departures are frequent in Minnesota sentencing and urged practitioners to take steps to avoid unintended departures, which can lead to resentencing or reversal. "Roughly, roughly, 1 out of every 4 sentences imposed is imposed under a departure," the presenter said, adding that while departures keep the system moving, many appear to be unintended.
The presenter said practitioners should use the sentencing guidelines that were in effect when the current offense occurred to determine severity level, any applicable modifiers and mandatory minimums. She described the guideline grids used to calculate presumptive sentences — noting the ‘‘middle of the box’’ example of a 60‑month presumptive sentence for a severity level 7 with 4 points — and explained the allowable durational range (about 15% down and 20% up) that avoids a durational departure.
Missing or incorrect information on worksheets is a frequent cause of inadvertent departures, the presenter said. Examples included sentencing off a pre‑printed document that omitted modifiers, failing to record a statutory mandatory minimum or applying the wrong statute. She cautioned that some departures later get labeled as plea agreements even when the worksheet lacks the requisite detail to justify the classification.
The presenter described other common errors: sentencing a felony as a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor (a mitigated durational departure), stay‑of‑imposition outcomes that produce mitigated dispositional departures when a presumptive commit would have applied, and defendants who demand execution of their sentence (which the presenter said is not a departure but must still be reported).
On criminal history, the presenter stressed that non‑Minnesota convictions must be verified before inclusion. She cited recent appellate decisions — including State v Abdullah (2023) and a recent State v Johnson opinion — where courts reversed sentences because the prosecution failed to establish out‑of‑state priors. "The state bears the burden" to prove out‑of‑state convictions, she said, and staff should not rely solely on pre‑sentence investigation reports for verification.
As a practical fix, the presenter recommended the commission’s criminal history summary tool, described as a "worksheet in reverse" that focuses on verifying and recording criminal history first and then converts to a sentencing worksheet in a few clicks. She argued that submitting even a draft worksheet or criminal history summary in advance allows commission staff to flag likely issues so courts have better information at sentencing.
The presenter illustrated the problem with a case where a worksheet prepared on count 1 led the court to sentence on count 2, producing a mitigated durational departure: the defendant received 32 months under the worksheet the court used, but the presenter said the correct guideline sentence would have been substantially higher had the worksheet matched the sentenced count.
The talk closed with the presenter noting that some opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the commission and offering to connect attendees with researchers for technical questions or follow‑up.
