Opinion
No. A08-1772.
Filed December 15, 2009.
Appeal from the District Court, Ramsey County, File No. 62-K9-08-855.
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, and Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Mitchell L. Rothman, Assistant County Attorney, (for respondent).
Marie L. Wolf, Interim Chief Appellate Public Defender, Bradford S. Delapena, Assistant Public Defender, (for appellant).
Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Bjorkman, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Otis Elliot Woodson challenges the district court's imposition of consecutive sentences for his convictions of violation of a domestic abuse no-contact order, Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 22(d)(1) (Supp. 2007) (violation within ten years of two or more previous violations) and domestic assault, Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 4 (2006) (violation within ten years of two or more previous violations). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing permissive consecutive sentences, we affirm.
DECISION
We will reverse the district court's imposition of consecutive sentences for an abuse of discretion. State v. McLaughlin, 725 N.W.2d 703, 715 (Minn. 2007). The district court sentenced appellant to consecutive sentences, which were permissive under Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F.2.b (2008). The district court abuses its discretion if consecutive sentencing is "disproportionate" or "unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant's conduct." State v. Hough, 585 N.W.2d 393, 397 (Minn. 1998). "A trial judge sits with a unique perspective on all stages of a case, including sentencing, and the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate the offender's conduct and weigh sentencing options." Id. Appellant has the burden of showing that consecutive sentencing exaggerates the criminality of his conduct. Id. at 398.
Appellant suggests that the sentence is disproportionate because the victim was not badly injured and the victim had permitted him to violate the no-contact order. Weighing against this assertion are various other factors: (1) the victim's seven-year old son was present and frightened; (2) the victim's 12-year old daughter, who also had a no-contact order against appellant, was initially present but quickly left; and (3) appellant failed to take any responsibility for his conduct. In addition, appellant was still on probation for similar offenses against the same victim. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing permissive consecutive sentences.
The state moved this court to take judicial notice of appellant's previous conviction and sentence. The previous conviction and sentence are a part of the record before this court. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.01 ("The papers filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any, shall constitute the record on appeal in all cases."). The state's motion is therefore unnecessary and is denied.
Affirmed; motion denied.