State v. Pegel
2011 Minn. App. LEXIS 20
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Jasper Pegel faced four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a 14-year-old niece and one count related to injury, charged under Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(g) and subd. 1(h)(ii).
- Appellant pled guilty to one count in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges, and the district court ordered a PSI and sentencing worksheet and a sex-offender assessment.
- A downward dispositional departure motion was filed; material documents were initially missing from the file, prompting a continued sentencing; the district court reviewed all materials at the continued hearing.
- The district court denied the downward departure request and imposed the presumptive 144-month sentence after considering mitigating and aggravating factors, victim impact, and the likelihood of rehabilitation.
- Appellant challenged the denial on appeal, arguing the court failed to address all Trog departure factors on the record.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the district court reasonably exercised its discretion and did not abuse its discretion in denying the downward dispositional departure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a downward dispositional departure without addressing all Trog factors on the record | Pegel argues court failed to consider all Trog factors before denying departure | Pegel contends lack of explicit factor-by-factor discussion evidences abuse of discretion | No abuse; court deliberately weighed factors and denied departure |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cameron, 370 N.W.2d 486 (Minn.App.1985) (presumptive sentence departure standard)
- State v. Spain, 590 N.W.2d 85 (Minn.1999) (discretion to depart from guidelines; substantial and compelling reasons)
- State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6 (Minn.1981) (rare reversal of presumptive sentence; factors for departure)
- State v. Mendoza, 638 N.W.2d 480 (Minn.App.2002) (requirement to deliberate consideration of departure factors)
- State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262 (Minn.App.1984) (record should reflect consideration of factors for departure)
- State v. Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d 77 (Minn.App.1985) (explanation for denying departure not required when reasons exist for departure)
- State v. Wall, 343 N.W.2d 22 (Minn.1984) (mitigating factors do not obligate shorter sentence; record must show deliberation)
- State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28 (Minn.1982) (age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude, and support as departure factors)