Placing a mentally ill offender on probation is discretionary with the district court, and we "review a district court's decision to make a dispositional departure on the ground of mental illness under Minn. Stat. § 609.1055 for an abuse of discretion." State v. Abdi, 855 N.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Minn. App. 2014) (concluding district court did not abuse discretion in denying dispositional departure because public safety would not be served by departure). The district court considered expert medical opinions from both parties, as well as the probation department's recommendation for possible community mental health treatment.
Even when Minn. Stat. § 609.1055 applies to a particular case, the decision of whether to place "a mentally ill offender on probation conditioned on completion of a supervised alternative-living program is discretionary with the district court." State v. Abdi, 855 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Minn. App. 2014). Appellant faced a presumptive prison sentence under the sentencing guidelines for these convictions.
But this court has held that, even if the offender meets the requirements of Minnesota Statutes section 609.1055, the district court still has discretion whether to grant the departure. State v. Abdi, 855 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn. Jan. 20, 2015).
Regardless of whether Hall may have satisfied the conditions necessary for a sentencing departure, the ultimate decision as to whether to depart from the presumptive sentence is discretionary with the district court. See State v. Abdi, 855 N.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Minn.App. 2014) (reasoning that decisions made pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.1055 are reviewed for an abuse of discretion); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.44 (2020) (defining "may" as permissive). Moreover, section 609.1055 only permits departure "when consistent with public safety," and the district court specifically expressed concerns that Hall posed a risk to public safety.
Further, even assuming appellant suffered from anxiety and mental illness, the district court did not have to place appellant on probation because the decision to depart is discretionary. See State v. Abdi, 855 N.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Minn.App. 2014) (noting that even if section 609.1055 applies, the decision whether to apply it rests with the district court).
But even if section 609.1055 may apply, the decision whether to apply it rests within the discretion of the district court. State v. Abdi, 855 N.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn. Jan. 20, 2015). The record shows the district court considered whether alternative placement would be consistent with public safety.
But section 609.1055 uses the word "may," which grants a district court discretion in deciding whether to place a mentally ill offender on probation. See State v. Abdi, 855 N.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Minn. App. 2014). And here, the district court, after "carefully" considering the psychological report, determined that any mitigating factor was outweighed by "the dangerousness" of the offense.
As to the legislature’s use of the phrase "may be imposed" in section 609.02, we note that "may" is permissive. Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 15 (2016) ; State v. Abdi , 855 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn. Jan. 20, 2015). Thus, we read the phrase "may be imposed" in section 609.02 to plainly mean a sentence that is permitted or authorized by law.