State v. Doherty

Citations: 419 N.W.2d 624; 1988 Minn. App. LEXIS 60; 1988 WL 9929Docket: No. CX-87-1566

Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota; February 15, 1988; Minnesota; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

William Doherty pleaded guilty to escape under Minn.Stat. 609.485, subd. 2(1) and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (UUMV) under Minn.Stat. 609.55, subd. 2. The trial court sentenced him to thirteen months for UUMV, consecutive to one year and one day for escape, with both sentences running consecutively to an unexpired burglary sentence. This sentence represented a dispositional departure from the presumptive guidelines. The court granted jail credit for time served post-supervised release on a previous burglary conviction. Doherty contested the trial court’s departures from the presumptive sentence, the imposition of consecutive sentences, and the jail credit calculation. 

The facts revealed that after receiving a probationary sentence for third-degree burglary, which was later revoked due to a second burglary, Doherty was sentenced for second-degree burglary. While serving time at Willow River Camp, he and another inmate escaped, stole a truck, and abandoned it after damaging it. Doherty was arrested days later, identified by the bar owner where he had purchased alcohol. He was charged with escape, UUMV, theft, and criminal damage, but ultimately pled guilty to the escape and UUMV charges, with a plea agreement recommending dismissal of the other charges and a concurrent sentence. The trial court subsequently referred the case for a presentence investigation.

The presentence report, prepared by Willow River Camp personnel, recommended that the appellant be committed to the Commissioner of Corrections for 13 months for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (UUMV) and receive a consecutive 12-month and 1-day sentence for escape. This UUMV sentence departs from guidelines, justified by the fact that the offense occurred while the appellant was an inmate. The appellant had a criminal history score of 3, with severity levels for the offenses being III for escape (presumptive sentence of 17 months executed) and I for UUMV (presumptive stayed sentence of 13 months).

The appellant's sentences for prior burglary convictions expired in 1986 and 1988, respectively, with a scheduled supervised release date of May 5, 1987. At the sentencing hearing on May 14, 1987, the trial court acknowledged the department of corrections' recommendation for a 13-month executed sentence, considering the circumstances of the case and the involvement of the appellant in both charges. The court noted that executing the UUMV sentence might not constitute a departure due to new provisions from the sentencing guidelines commission regarding offenses committed while on escape status.

The appellant was ultimately sentenced to 13 months executed for UUMV, with jail credit for time served post-supervised release date, and received a consecutive sentence of one year and one day for escape. The trial court emphasized the seriousness of the offenses committed while in custody, asserting that concurrent sentences would downplay the criminality of the actions. The appellant seeks resentencing to concurrent terms of 15 months for escape and 17 months for UUMV, or alternatively, requests the reversal of the dispositional departure and a stayed sentence of 13 months for UUMV, along with jail credit from the date of being charged with that offense.

1. The trial court imposed an executed sentence for Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle (UUMV), deviating from the presumptive 13-month stayed sentence for a criminal history score of 3. The focus is whether this departure was an abuse of discretion. 

2. Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines mandate that a court must provide written reasons for any departure from the presumptive sentence, demonstrating substantial and compelling circumstances for the deviation. 

3. The trial court incorrectly believed there was no dispositional departure, influenced by an executive's statements from the Sentencing Guidelines Commission. Despite this, the decision can still be affirmed if supported by the sentencing report or record.

4. The absence of a departure report is not fatal if the court’s reasons for the departure are evident in the record, as established in Williams v. State. The guidelines outline conditions under which departures may be allowed or reversed based on the sufficiency of reasons provided.

5. The record substantiates the trial court’s sentencing decision, as it considered the individual circumstances of the appellant, particularly noting his history of probation violations and subsequent offenses.

6. The analysis also addresses sentencing for escape and its consecutive nature to the unexpired burglary sentence, along with the determination of jail credit, although details on these specific issues are not fully elaborated in the summary. 

The summary captures the key legal principles and reasoning regarding the trial court's sentencing decisions and the procedural guidelines that govern such departures.

Appellant escaped from detention while serving a sentence, stole a flatbed truck, and subsequently escaped again after returning to Willow River Camp. The trial court determined to impose an executed sentence based on recommendations from the Department of Corrections and considered the escapes and crimes committed during that period. Although the presentence report did not explicitly state that appellant was unamenable to probation, his actions—committing a burglary while on probation and two escapes—indicated he was a poor candidate for probation. Thus, the court's decision to impose an executed sentence for the Unlawful Use of a Motor Vehicle (UUMV) offense was deemed supported by the record.

However, the trial court's decision to impose a consecutive sentence for UUMV, rather than concurrent with the unexpired burglary sentence, was found to be erroneous. Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Section II.F. mandates concurrent sentences unless specified otherwise, and no departure report justifying the consecutive sentence was filed. Therefore, the consecutive sentence for UUMV was reversed, and it was ordered to run concurrently with the burglary sentence.

Additionally, the trial court granted jail credit for UUMV starting from May 5, 1987, but appellant argued for credit from March 16, 1987, the date he was charged. The court agreed, stating that all time served for the UUMV charge must be credited, regardless of concurrent incarceration for the burglary conviction.

Lastly, regarding the sentence for escape, which was imposed consecutively to the UUMV and burglary sentences, Minnesota Statute 609.485 specifies that such a sentence shall be consecutive unless otherwise stated. The guidelines allow consecutive sentences for escape only under specific conditions, which apply in this case due to the nature of the offenses and the timing of the escapes.

Consecutive sentencing for escape is outlined in the guidelines, with the sanction's severity reflecting the offense's gravity. The trial court did not indicate that the escape sentence would run concurrently with the existing burglary sentence. It was noted that the consecutive nature of the sentence was necessary to properly reflect the offense's seriousness. Therefore, under Minn.Stat. 609.485, subd. 4, the escape sentence and the unexpired burglary sentence will be served consecutively. The court affirms the thirteen-month executed sentence for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (UUMV) but reverses the decision for UUMV to be served consecutively to the burglary sentence, mandating it run concurrently instead. The appellant is awarded jail credit for the UUMV sentence starting from March 16, 1987. The one-year-and-one-day escape sentence will remain consecutive to both the burglary and UUMV sentences. The ruling is affirmed in part and reversed in part.