State v. OlsonState v. Olson
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Connolly
OPINION
CONNOLLY, Judge.Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant him a downward dispositional departure from the presumptive sentence when his co-defendants received lighter sentences and there was evidence in the record that he was amenable to probation. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing appellant to the presumptive sentence, we affirm.
On August 7, 2007, appellant Jay Andrew Olsоn and several other individuals entered the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. That evening, appellant and the other individuals recklessly discharged firearms, harassed and threatened many campers at different campsites, and damaged and stole property. These individuals, including appellant, were subsequently arrested and charged with numerous crimes. It is not disputed that appellant discharged a firearm.
On June 2, 2008, appellant pleаded guilty to one count of felony aiding and abetting terroristic threats, one count of felony aiding and abetting harassment with a firearm, two counts of gross misdemeanor aiding and abetting criminal damage to property, one count of misdemeanor possession of stolen property, and one count of misdemeanor reckless discharge of a firearm. Appellant moved for a downward dispositional departure. On August 11, 2008, the district cоurt sentenced appellant to the mandatory presumptive sentence of 36 months in prison for aiding and аbetting harassment with a firearm.
ISSUE
Did the district court abuse its discretion when it refused to grant appellant a dispo-sitional departure and instead imposed the presumptive sentencе?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant him a downward dispositional departurе when there were substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the presumptive prison sentenсe. Respondent asserts that imposition of the presumptive sentence was within the district court’s broad discrеtion.
A district court may depart from the presumptive sentence provided by the guidelines only if “substantial and cоmpelling” circumstances warrant such a departure. Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.D. “Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typiсal case.” State v. Peake, 366 N.W.2d 299, 301 (Minn.1985). Whether to depart from the guidelines rests within the district court’s discretion, and this court will not reverse the decision “absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Oberg, 627 N.W.2d 721, 724 (Minn.App.2001), review denied (Minn. Aug. 22, 2001). Only in a “rare” case will a reviewing court reverse a district court’s imposition of the presumptive sentence. State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn.1981).
The district court sentenced appellant to the presumptive sentence of 36 months in prison for aiding and abetting harassment with a firearm.
First, the district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is particularly
Appellant further argues that the district court improperly relied on the elements of the offense to deny his motion to depart. Apрellant has cited no authority to indicate that doing so would have been improper, but, regardless, we disagree that the district court improperly relied on the elements of the offense to deny appellant’s mоtion to depart. The district court did acknowledge that appellant and his co-defendants harassed а large number of victims, including total strangers, for several hours. But the length of an attack and the number of victims involved аre not elements of aiding and abetting harassment with a firearm.
DECISION
There is evidence in the record that appellant was amenable to probation. Nonetheless, the district court sentenced appellant to prison, which was the presumptive sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion.
Affirmed.
Notes
. The probation officer ultimately recommended that appellant receive a 36-month executed prison sentence.