State v. Peter, 2012 Minn. App. LEXIS 143

Manlear Peter broke into a Habitat for Humanity facility in Moorhead and stole cash and a portable computer.
He pleaded guilty to felony third-degree burglary.
The district court downward departed from the guidelines, sentencing 360 days instead of the 366-day presumptive sentence, to avoid federal deportation.
The court expressly considered immigration consequences and later added factors (age, family status, lack of felony record, employment) as grounds for a dispositional departure.
The state appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by using deportation as a sentencing factor in violation of Mendoza.
The appellate court held deportation and related immigration consequences are not valid sentencing factors and reversed and remanded for the presumptive sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the downward departure abuse of discretion based on deportation?	Peter contends deportability is a permissible factor.	State argues deportation is not a valid sentencing factor per Mendoza.	Yes, it was an abuse; deportability is not a valid factor; remand for presumptive sentence.

State v. Mendoza, 638 N.W.2d 480 (Minn. App. 2002) (deportation is not to be considered for sentencing purposes)
State v. M.L.A., 785 N.W.2d 763 (Minn. App. 2010) (binding precedent guiding sentencing discretion)
State v. Cox, 343 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. 1984) (offender-related factors generally do not support durational departures)
State v. Chaklos, 528 N.W.2d 225 (Minn. 1995) (offender-related factors not valid for durational departures)
State v. Cermak, 350 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. 1984) (likelihood of future criminal behavior not valid for durational departure)
State v. Back, 341 N.W.2d 273 (Minn. 1983) (post-offense remorse not appropriate for durational departure)
State v. Bauerly, 520 N.W.2d 760 (Minn. App. 1994) (age and lack of felony record not valid bases for durational departures)