Opinion
No. C5-02-228
Filed July 2, 2002.
Appeal from the District Court, Beltrami County, File No. K701556.
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, and
Timothy R. Favor, Beltrami County Attorney, Eric Schieferdecker, Assistant County Attorney, (for appellant)
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Leslie J. Rosenberg, Assistant Public Defender, (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Anderson, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant State of Minnesota argues that the district court abused its discretion when it granted a downward dispositional departure in the sentencing of respondent Rose Marie Hatton following her conviction of criminal vehicular homicide. We affirm.
DECISION
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in granting respondent a downward dispositional departure because the record does not support the court's finding that respondent is amenable to probation. We disagree.
Decisions to depart from the sentencing guidelines rest within the district court's broad discretion and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. State v. Givens, 544 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Minn. 1996); State v. Barsness, 473 N.W.2d 325, 329 (Minn.App. 1991), review denied (Minn. Aug. 29, 1991). A reviewing court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the district court regarding sentencing matters. State v. Sejnoha, 512 N.W.2d 597, 601 (Minn.App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Apr. 21, 1994).
The sentencing court may depart if the defendant is "particularly amenable to probation or if offense-related mitigating circumstances are present." State v. Love, 350 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Minn. 1984). A decision whether to depart dispositionally focuses "more on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society." State v. Heywood, 338 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn. 1983). Furthermore, [n]umerous factors, including the defendant's age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family, are relevant to a determination whether a defendant is particularly suitable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.
State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982).
Here, the sentencing court based its departure in part on respondent's remorse and her amenability to probation. Respondent's therapist testified that respondent is genuinely remorseful about the victim's death as evidenced by respondent's posttraumatic stress disorder stemming from the incident. And the court found that respondent is now in a supportive relationship, is going to AA meetings, and has support from family friends and her sponsor. We conclude all of these factors support the district court's finding of amenability to probation.
Further, the record indicates respondent is now confined to a wheelchair and her sponsor drives her to the AA meetings. Thus, she is presently not a danger to society, based on the threat of her drinking and driving. Moreover, appellant has an incentive not to violate her probation because her physical disabilities make living in jail very painful and difficult.
Finally, respondent's sentence followed the recommendation in her presentence investigation report that she be granted a dispositional departure and a stayed sentence with ten years of supervised probation. On these facts, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion.