This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Shawn R. Crawford,
Filed December 6, 2005
Steele County District Court
File No. K2-02-538 / K2-01-1288
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
Douglas L. Ruth, Steele County Attorney, Scott L. Schreiner, Assistant County Attorney, 303 South Cedar, Owatonna, MN 55060 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Stoneburner, Judge, and Crippen, Judge.
Appellant challenges his sentence, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a downward durational departure. Because neither of the mitigating circumstances alleged by appellant is adequately established in the record and the court acted well within its discretion by disregarding both when it imposed the presumptive sentence, we affirm.
June 2003, appellant
Before sentencing, appellant filed a motion for a downward durational departure, arguing that the victims of each offense were in fact the aggressors and that his mental health was compromised at the time he committed the offenses. The district court denied the motion and imposed the presumptive guidelines sentences of 21 months and 19 months imprisonment, to be served concurrently.
court’s sentencing decision will be overturned only if there is a clear abuse
of discretion. State v. Schmit, 601 N.W.2d 896, 898 (
district court must impose the presumptive sentence unless the case involves
substantial and compelling circumstances that warrant a departure.
Appellant’s assertion that he was the victim in each incident and acted in self-defense is contradicted by both the police reports admitted into evidence to provide the factual bases for appellant’s guilty pleas and by the district court’s findings of fact concerning those pleas. Appellant’s assertion is insufficient to mandate a downward departure. See State v. King, 367 N.W.2d 599, 603 (Minn. App. 1985) (affirming the refusal to depart from the sentencing guidelines where “[a]ppellant's contention that she was not the aggressor in the incident was not clear from the evidence”).
assertion concerning his compromised mental health is based on a psychological
report prepared prior to sentencing. A defendant
may be eligible for a downward departure because of a mental impairment.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.