State of Minnesota v. Scott James Boorman
A16-262
| Minn. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2016Background
- Appellant Scott Boorman pleaded guilty to first-degree and third-degree criminal sexual conduct under a plea agreement allowing both sides to argue within the Sentencing Guidelines; both parties agreed no departure was being sought.
- At sentencing the court imposed 144 months for first-degree CSC and a consecutive 77-month sentence for third-degree CSC, producing a combined sentence within the original overall aggregate.
- The district court announced ranges for first-degree and third-degree offenses consistent with a criminal-history score of three for the third-degree count (77–108 months), not zero.
- The sentencing worksheet and warrant of commitment noted no departure and the record contained no stated reasons for any departure from the Guidelines.
- Boorman appealed, arguing the court erred by not using a criminal-history score of zero when imposing a permissive consecutive sentence for the third-degree offense; the State agreed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court must use CHS 0 when imposing a permissive consecutive sentence | Boorman: court must use a criminal-history score of 0 (or the offense mandatory minimum) to set presumptive duration for permissive consecutive sentences | State: concedes error (district court did not use CHS 0) | Court: district court erred; permissive consecutive sentence must be calculated using CHS 0 unless reasoned departure is stated |
| Whether an unexplained higher-duration consecutive sentence is a permissible non-departure | Boorman: unexplained use of CHS 3 was improper departure | State: conceded error | Court: unexplained higher-duration consecutive sentence is a departure and invalid without stated reasons |
| Appropriate remedy for unexplained departure on part of a sentencing "package" | Boorman: vacate third-degree sentence and impose CHS 0 bottom-of-box (41 months) | State: asked court to require at least original total on remand (no authority cited) | Court: reversed and remanded for resentencing on both counts; district court may resentence but total may not exceed original aggregate and may not depart without stated reasons |
| Whether appellate court may remand to allow district court to state reasons for an unexplained departure | Boorman: sought direct correction to CHS 0 sentence | State: sought enforcement of original total minimum | Court: cannot remand solely to elicit reasons; resentencing required as part of entire sentencing package |
Key Cases Cited
- Misquadace v. State, 644 N.W.2d 65 (Minn. 2002) (statutory interpretation of sentencing guidelines reviewed de novo)
- Franklin v. State, 604 N.W.2d 79 (Minn. 2000) (review of departure decision for abuse of discretion)
- Williams v. State, 361 N.W.2d 840 (Minn. 1985) (no departure allowed if reasons not stated on the record)
- State v. Johnson, 770 N.W.2d 566 (Minn.) (reversed consecutive sentence where court used nonzero CHS instead of zero for permissive consecutive sentence)
- Geller v. State, 665 N.W.2d 514 (Minn. 2003) (appellate court cannot remand solely to allow district court to articulate reasons for an unexplained departure)
- State v. Hutchins, 856 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. App. 2014) (sentencing treated as a package; attacking part reopens entire judgment)
- Prudhomme v. State, 228 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 1975) (resentencing limited so total does not exceed original sentence)