*1 thе determining appropriate fact-finder Minnesota, Appellant, of expert psychiatric testi STATE assign to
weight DeMars, at (citing 352 N.W.2d mony.” Id. 16). BLUHM, Respondent. of findings Lynn
In the trial court’s extensive Amber verdict, it the carefully considered fact and No. C6-02-1775. and experts four all presented evidence believability weight and to the determined Supreme Court Minnesota. Ac- expert’s testimony. given tо each give great- to cordingly, court decided the March opinions-of Drs. Farns- weight the er reports their because worth and Kienlen appellant’s be- more consistent with
were system. The court could
havior and belief opinions the of Drs. Gilbert-
not reconcile of the with several facts
son Erdmann 23, 2000, im-
case; that on namely, April murder, the
mediately and after before able communicate
appellant was Further,
interact others normally. underpin- the some of questioned analysis Erdmann’s revised
nings Dr.. first second
and found that his Dr. Erdmann had relied on simi-
opinions divergent conclusions. support
lar facts to
Finally, appellant concluded the court proved by preponderance
had murder, that, at the time
evidence suffering was a severe mental
he from
illness, appellant, had failed but -that he of mental illness
prove that because his nature of act or his
did understand was constituting the offense act
wrong. record,
Upon rigorous review granted to the
noting broad deference determining the appropriate
fact-finder expert testi-
weight assign psychiatric
mony viewing favor- evidencemost guilt, hold
ably finding support to support
that sufficient evidence existed appellant. trial court’s conviction
Affirmed. *2 Stuart,
John M. Defender, State Public Roy Spurbeck, G. Assistant State Public Defender, Minneapolis, Respondent. OPINION PAGE, Justice.
In appeal by state, this we are asked to decide whether a defendant convicted under (2002), § Minn.Stat. who previous has a qualifying controlled sub- conviction, stance must serve a mandatory case, sentence. respon- dent Lynn Amber pleaded Bluhm guilty to fifth-degree controlled substance crime. At her sentencing hearing, the district stayed imposition sentence, placed her on years’ three probation, and re- quired her to jail. serve six months On appeal, the court appeals held that 3(b) Minn.Stat. (2002), does not a mandatory minimum period of inсarceration. We reverse. 9, 2000, On Bluhm, December age was marijuana arrested for and metham- phetamine possession and eventually charged with first-degree possession of methamphetamine sell, with intent violation of Minn.Stat. subds. 1(1) 3(b) (2002), and fifth-degree pos- marijuana session of sell, with intent to violation of Minn.Stat. subds. 1(1) 3(b) (2002). Bluhm previous- had ly stay received a adjudication for a fifth-degree controlled substance offense. In April pleaded guilty to an amended charge of controlled substance crime the fifth degree, possession of methamphetamine, in violation of Minn. Hatch, Mike Attorney General, Kelly 2(1) 3(b) (2002). Stat. subds. Moller, O’Neill Attorney Assistant Gener- In exchange for the plea, the agreed state al, Paul, Carlson, St. John K. County Pine to dismiss the other charges and recоm- Attorney, City, Pine for Appellant. mend a cap six-month time. (Minn.1996) curiam). (per offense and the N.W.2d the time of the Between successfully object statutory entered The construction guilty plea, Bluhm is to dependency pro- a chemical completed ascertain the intent. Minn. attending (2002). narcot- *3 regularly was gram and Stat. “When the words of 2002, meetings. May In anonymous ics in application a law their an existing high and com- Bluhm returned to school all situation are clear and free from ambi- high her school education before pleted law not guity, the letter of the shall be investigation sentencing. presentence disregarded pretext pursuing under the a report that Bluhm receive recommended words, spirit.” the Id. other when the stayed imposition of sentence and be plain intent clear from condi- placed probation on with one of the unambiguous statutory language, on being tions that she serve six months in engage any court “does not further con- In a monitoring. supple- home electronic plain struction and instead looks it that the report, suggested mental was meaning statutory language.” State no court had alternative but sentence (Minn. Wukawitz, 517, 662 v. N.W.2d 525 Bluhm to serve six months because 2003). previous fifth-degree controlled
she had and, therefore, substance crime conviction power “The to fix the limits of minimum mandatory of six sentence criminal acts punishment for lies with the had to months be served. See Minn.Stat. However, legislature. the imposition of a 152.025, 3(b). subd. particular sentence in a case within those judicial limits is a function.” v. Stаte Mis- sentencing hearing September At her 65, (Minn.2002) 644 N.W.2d quadace, 68 9, 2002, stayed imposition the district court (internal omitted). legisla citations “The probation Bluhm on placed may ture the court to authorize exercise years. part probation, As of her for three imposition discretion in the broad sen Bluhm the district court ordered to serve by fixing for the providing tences sen county jail. six months The court prescribed within minimum tences an probably stated that “six months [was] years. may maximum the legislature Or sentence,” but that it would appropriate judicial restrict the exercise of discretion mitigating have considered the factors sentencing, providing such as presented if Minn.Stat. Olson, mandatory sentences.” State v. 325 3(b), subd. afforded court discre (Minn.1982). 13, N.W.2d 18 ‘“When it tion court stayed to do so. The district certainty leg cannot be that the said ap pending appeal. Bluhm’s sentence On imposi islature intended to authorize the peal, appeals court reversed of a minimum term or an extended tion resentencing, holding remanded for that situation, particular pre in a term 3(b), not subdivision did sumption legislature must be that the did mini actually mandate that Bluhm serve a ” Ronquist, to do sо.’ State v. intend jail. mum of six months State v. (Minn.1999) (quoting 600 N.W.2d 446 Bluhm, (Minn.App. 663 N.W.2d 30 Simmons, 258 N.W.2d State 2003). (Minn.1977)). Whether Minn.Stat. 3(b), requires mandatory question presented Resolution of re-
term is a stat us to examine three statutes. The question quires of incarceration utory first is section subdivision construction which this reviews Murphy, de See novo. State v. which reads: is a subsequent If the conviction con- legislature stated must clearly conviction, a рerson trolled its substance state intent to create sen convicted under subdivision 1 or shall and a sentencing tence court has the dis to the place committed commissioner of cretion a defendant on to a local corrections or correctional au- a statute a mandatory when calls for sen thority for not less than if six months nor the statutory tence sсheme does not and, years addition, more than ten specifically However, probation. exclude of a payment recently, be sentenced fine in interpreting more a conditional $20,000. of not provision, more than release stated “[t]he *4 of statutory provide canons construction We must also construe Minn.Stat. mandatory” that ‘shall’ is and that (2002), § 152.026 which reads: legislature “аppend does not to need lan A defendant convicted and sentenced to guage prohibiting every to waiver manda mandatory a sentence under sections tory statute ensure that the statute is eligible 152.021 to 152.025 is not for Humes, given effect.” State v. 581 N.W.2d probation, parole, discharge, super- or 317, (Minn.1998); 319 see also State v. vised until that person release has (Minn. 53, Sheppard, 587 N.W.2d 56-57 sеrved the full term of imprisonment as App.1998) (holding that Minn.Stat. law, provided by notwithstanding sec- 609.11, 8(b) (2002), subd. and Humes 243.05, 242.19, 609.12, tions and 609Í135. prohibit a sentencing court from imposing imprisonment” “Term of the mean- has probation mandatory instead of a sen 244.01, ing given in section subdivision 8. (Minn. tence), 1999). 27, rev. denied Jan. And, finally, must construe Minn.Stat. presents arguments Bluhm three in sup- 609.135, (2002), 1 which reads: First, port of affirmance. Bluhm cites a “Except imprison when sentence of life Feinstein, arguing Childers that those law, by ment is a required when manda give cases a court sentencing the discre- tory by required minimum sentence is sec place tion to a on probation defendant tion any may stay imposition court * n * despite language seemingly that mandates or execution of sentence and that a minimum period of confinement be place the on probation.” defendant Second, argues served. that In past, expressed we have disfavor phrase “term of imprisonment” as used in See, with mandatory minimum sentences. 152.026 only section applies executed Simmons, e.g., State v. 258 N.W.2d year sentences of more than one served at (Minn.1977); Childers, 910 State v. 309 a facility state correctional and not to the (Minn.1981) (holding N.W.2d that a jаil six-month sentence mandated sec- judge is not from precluded imposing pro 3(b), tion subdivision and there- bation on a possession intent dis sentencing may impose fore a court proba- drugs tribute the sen conviction because tion in lieu mandatory jail of the time tencing explicitly did not statute exclude imposed argu- case. Bluhm’s final probation); consideration of State v. mеnt that legislature is did not clearly Feinstein, (Minn. 338 N.W.2d draft section 152.025to a mandato- 1983) (holding requires that a that statute ry jail minimum sentence. the court to “commit the defendant commissioner of corrections” a mini argues state a The that six-month mum years of three does preclude not a term mandatory is and must be served. judge staying from execution of the three- The state plain contends that the language sentence). year words, other we have of section subdivision section mum that that Bluhm of six months and the sentence and Humes mandate actually interpretation jail sentence. be served. This actually serve her six-month Feinstein, that the court of with Childers and The state also asserts consistent holding sentencing presumption erred in which that is that appeals state may stay sentence probation dispositional court is an authorized al- section section 609.135 because specifically under ternative unless the statute ex- specifically section 152.026 states cludes of probation. the consideration Finally, the state apply. Childers, 38; Feinstein, 309 N.W.2d at Feinstein, distinguishes ar- Here, Childers N.W.2d at section 152.025 was no guing that in those cases there cleаrly mandates specifically statute like section 152.026that 152.026 specifically served prohibited imposing stayed court from un- excludes the consideration of sentence. actually til the minimum term has been argument served. Bluhm’s that the sen- of sections 152.025 language tencing place the discretion to unambiguous. 152.026 is clear and *5 being defendant sentenced under section 3(b), 152.025, subdivision states Seсtion 3(b), 152.025, a subsequent subdivision for person previous who has a con that probation substance crime on controlled conviction and is convict trolled substance committing instead her to the minimum of controlled substance subsequent ed of in term called for that section fails. “shall committed to the commis crime be 152.025, § Minnesota Statutes subdivi- of or local correctional sioner corrections 3(b)’s, plain notwithstanding, sion language authority for not less than six months.” added.) argues that section 152.026 (Emphasis Section 152.026 states not that mandate that a “defendant convicted and sentenced actually be served when commitment is to to a sentence under sections authority. a local correctional Bluhm rea- proba not eligible 152.021 152.025is for * * n sons as follows. 152.026 stаtes Section person has served the tion until that eligible proba- that defendant is not for (Emphasis imprisonment.” term full added.) serving impris- tion full “term until Moreover, in contrast to subdivi 3(b) imprisonment” onment.” “Term of is de- 152.025, sion of section section fined crimes on or after 3(a), for “committed 152.025, that subdivision states “[a] August period of timé [as] person under subdivision or convicted equal execut- to two-thirds of inmate’s to imprisonment.” be may sentenced 244.01, § added.) subd. 8 ed sentence.” Minn.Stat. (Emphasis legislature’s Given the “ (2002). (a) means the ‘Executed sentence’ “may” subpart of subdivision 3 use (b) period total of time which an inmate is for subpart penalty the fact that is the custody of to the the commis- committed subsequent controlled substance crime convictions, sioner corrections.” Minn.Stat. only that the wе can conclude (2002). Thus, 244.01, § subd. 9 because legislature clearly intended the sanction (b) to a local correc- Bluhm was committed mandatory. subpart be authority the commissioner tional and not Thus, plain language we read the corrections, that was not argues she she 3(b), 152.025, subdivision sections imprisonment” to a “term of committed mandating as an 152.026 individual under section 152.026. subject provision рenalty creative, 3(b), not 152.025, argument, committed to Bluhm’s while subdivision be reading Bluhm’s of the authority convincing for a mini- because a local correctional Therefore, statute would render section 152.026 a local correctional authority). meaningless 152.025, for those committed to a local we that Minn. hold Stat subd. 3(b), authority mandates that a correctional and would lead to dеfendant convicted nonfelony-level of a subsequent results or results that would controlled absurd be substance crime be committed to the local ascertaining to execute. impossible serve, intent, authority correctional at a mini- presume “the mum, a six-month pro- sentence and that not legislature does intend a result that is bation imposed in lieu of serv- absurd, execution, impossible of or unrea- ing the six-month sentence.2 sonable.” Minn.Stat. subd.
(2002). Section 152.026 that a states de- Reversed. convicted under
fendant
sections 152.021
GILBERT, Justice (concurring).
through 152.025 and
to a man-
sentenced
datory
sentence is ineligible for
decision,
I
concur
the court’s
but
full
imprisonment
until the
term of
express
write to
concern about the effect
If
imprisonment”
been
“term of
served.
of rеsult reached in this case. The Minne-
only applied
to sentences that
com-
legislature,
session,
sota
in its 1989
in ef-
mitment
to the
commissioner
correc-
22-year-old
fect sentenced
Lynn
Amber
tions, we would
ignore
either have to
the Bluhm to 6
imprisonment
months’
in 2004.
fact that section
applies
to manda- The 1993 amendments
to Minn.Stat.
tory
3(b),
sentences under sections
sub-
and Minn.Stat.
3(b),
division
subdivision
152.026 notwithstanding,
lеgisla-
would have to
ture’s enactment of
*6
interpret
these laws
our
controls
decision
requiring
today.
legisla-
as
The
152.026
individuals who are
power
ture
the
has
to fix
year
sentenced to less than a
a
the limits of
day
and
punishment for criminal acts within consti-
committed to the
of
commissioner
correc-
and,
tutional constraints
as the court’s de-
tions.1 The former creates an absurd rе-
clear,
cision makes
the word “shall” is
requires
in that it
plain
sult
the statute’s
clear
unambiguous.3
and
Minnesota Stat-
language
ignored
to be
and the latter is
3(b) (2002),
utes
and
contrary
in
to law that
it is inconsistent
(2002)
provide
Bluhm,
152.026
a
(1)
with Minn.Stat.
subds.
repeat offender of controlled substance
(3) (2002) (placing individuals who are sen-
crime in the fifth degree, must be commit-
felony
to
tenced
sentences of more than
ted for not less than 6 months as those
year
day
one
and a
of imprisonment under
terms are defined in the statutes.
supervision
the
of the commissioner of cor-
placing
rections and
individuals sentenced
I
separately
write
to
on
comment
the
a
period
to lesser
supervision
under the
of
effect of the
enactment of this
mandatory
1. The
sentences
in
(stating
sections
mandаtory
"[w]hen the
mini-
through
152.023
commit-
year
mum sentence is for less than one
ment
the commissioner of corrections.
day”
may
one
the minimum sentence
be satis-
152.025, mandatory
Like section
the
sentence
incarceration!,]
"any
by
fied
including time
section 152.024
involve commitment
spent in local confinement as a condition of a
a
authority.
to local correctional
sentence”).
stayed
permissible
It
sentencing
for a
court to
3.This
case does not overrule our well-estab-
impose the six-month mandatory sentence as
principle
any
lished
that where there is
ambi-
stayed
a
felony
condition of
on a
statute,
guity
sentencing
ain
ambiguity
the
as the court
did in
case.
See
should be resolved in favor of the defendant.
Sentencing
Minnesota
cmt. II.E.02
Guidelines
rеsult,
unjust
which is not
the best
The facts
in 1989.
mandatory minimum
the
state.
unmiti-
of
individual
unnecessary and
interests
demonstrate
message that even
in this This case sends the
this sentence
harshness of
gated
drug-
accused
though
young person
everything
Bluhm has done
case.
everything
crime
of her
asked
justice system
hope
could
related
criminal
justice system
criminal
to rehabili-
admitted
charged with and
she was
sincе
herself,
law,
in terms minimum
her
tate
completed
She has
violating
law.
if
sentencing,
her the same as
she
has
treats
high
diploma,
school
course work for
not rehabilitated herself. At a time
job
completed and ad-
and has
obtained
had
full and
prisons
our
are
Minnesota
dependency
chemical
when
on-going
heres
shortfall,
budget
had
a severe
the rehabili-
She also has
hаs
requirements.
treatment
many
help
tative achievements of some
our
and works
a child
the interim
taken
account
drug offenders must be
into
addiction issues.
with chemical
others
executing
be-
sentences.4
has
rehabilitative
demonstrated
now,
Decem-
years
havior for over 3
since
significant
Minnesota has made
strides
that she
indicates
of 2000. The record
ber
preventative
mea-
working
forward
turned her life around.
has
crimes,
drug-related
for alcohol- and
sures
initiatives,5
our
re-
including
drug
legislative
and executive branches
justice,
stag-
Minn.Stat.
effect
storative
be made aware
should
policies.
sentencing
This
and other rehabilitative
sentencing
gered
some of their
cases,
designed
court,
expressed
programs.
programs
These
are
long
in а
line of
sanction,
correct,
as
well as
behavior
serious concerns
sentences,
and aid individuals accused
alcohol-
which remove all discretion
court,
drug-related
becoming produc-
crimes in
regardless
trial
from the
Childers,
See,
society.
programs
members of
These
e.g.,
State
309 tive
facts.
Simmons,
State v.
(Minn.1981);
established because
traditional
were
N.W.2d 37
(Minn.1977).
justice
prоducing
is not
system
In the con- criminal
ment, drop. rates tend to recidivism become national leader
Minnesota has initiatives. The manda- preventative
these
tory provided for in Minn.Stat. and Minn.Stat. directly counter to what 152.026 runs accomplish trying been
Minnesota has
in terms of rehabilitation and diversion to Sentencing
reduce recidivism. Bluhm 6 directly coun- imprisonment
months’ runs trying
ter to what Minnesota has been
accomplish.
ANDERSON, H., PAUL Justice
(concuri'ing). join
I in the concurrence of Justice Gil-
bert.
HANSON, (concurring). Justice join
I concurrence of Justice Gil-
bert. LP,
SPRINT SPECTRUM al., Relators,
et *8 REVENUE,
COMMISSIONER OF
Respondent.
No. A03-954.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
April