Vickla v. State, 793 N.W.2d 265

Background

Vickla pled guilty to offering forged checks >$35,000 and waived jury on sentencing issues; he admitted qualifying as a repeat-felony offender under Minn. Stat. § 609.1095, subd. 4.
District court sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 240 months under the repeat-felony-offender statute, after finding a 35-year criminal history and a pattern of criminal conduct.
PSI showed eleven prior felonies but only three counted for the guidelines due to a 15-year decay factor; the guidelines suggested 33 months as presumptive, with career-offender departure possible.
Vickla filed postconviction relief claiming the 240-month sentence was excessive; the postconviction court denied, the court of appeals reversed, and this Court granted review.
Statutory framework allows an aggravated durational departure up to the statutory maximum for repeat-felony offenders; Blakely concerns apply to live facts beyond presumptive guidelines.
The Court reinstitutes the 240-month sentence, affirming that the district court’s findings and record support the career-offender departure and the maximum term.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 240-month sentence for repeat-felony offender was an abuse of discretion	Vickla: excessive, disproportionate to gravity, not warranted by facts.	State: statutory maximum authorized by repeat-felony-offender statute given pattern and history.	Not an abuse; sentence upheld.
Whether Blakely/Dettman-validations permit admissions to increase beyond presumptive sentence	Vickla admitted five priors but sought jury fact-finding; waiver insufficient to justify max.	State: waiver permissible; admissions may support departure when paired with waiver.	Waiver plus admissions valid to support departure.
Whether the court could consider entire criminal history for repeat-offender status	Vickla argues age of prior convictions should limit consideration.	State: repeat-offender statute contemplates lifetime history and pattern.	Court may consider entire history; not limited by 15-year decay.
Whether appellate review may compare to other cases to assess proportionality	Vickla: 240-month not commensurate with similar cases.	State: Neal supports comparing comparable reasons; some cited cases are non-comparable.	Comparable comparisons allowed only when reasons align; in this record, comparison supports upholding.
Whether Kortkamp supports maximum for similar repeat-offender checks	Kortkamp shows disparity with 60-month vs 240-month.	State: Kortkamp supports using statutory maximum for repeat-offender in similar context.	Kortkamp supports statutory maximum in like circumstances; weight favors upholding.

Key Cases Cited

Neal v. State, 658 N.W.2d 536 (Minn.2003) (disproportionality analysis for greater-than-presumptive departures)
State v. Henderson, 706 N.W.2d 758 (Minn.2005) (Blakely-related restrictions apply to repeat-offender departures)
State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131 (Minn.2005) (jury-determined facts required for upward departure beyond presumptive sentence)
State v. Dettman, 719 N.W.2d 644 (Minn.2006) (admissions may increase sentence with knowing waiver of jury trial)
State v. Jackson, 749 N.W.2d 353 (Minn.2008) (appellate authority to modify sentences on various grounds, including unreasonable or excessive)
State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660 (Minn.2006) (review of sentence for reasonableness and appropriateness)
State v. Thompson, 720 N.W.2d 820 (Minn.2006) (upward departures for major economic offenses; comparison framework)
State v. Rott, 313 N.W.2d 574 (Minn.1981) (double-durational departures and aggravating factors)
Kortkamp, 560 N.W.2d 93 (Minn.App.1997) (comparative sentencing for repeat-offender forged-check case)
State v. Worthy, 583 N.W.2d 270 (Minn.1998) (career offender implications across lifetime history)