State of Minnesota v. Anthony Ra Hare ( 2017 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1117
State of Minnesota,
Appellant,
vs.
Anthony Ra Hare,
Respondent.
Filed January 30, 2017
Reversed and remanded
Jesson, Judge
Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CR-15-9082
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
John Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Thomas Ragatz, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for appellant)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Veronica M. Surges, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Schellhas,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JESSON, Judge
In this sentencing appeal, appellant State of Minnesota challenges the district court’s
imposition of a 48-month stayed sentence for first-degree aggravated robbery, which
constitutes a downward dispositional departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence
of 48 months in prison. Because the district court abused its discretion by failing to find
substantial and compelling circumstances to justify a sentencing departure, we reverse and
remand for resentencing.
FACTS
Respondent Anthony Ra Hare pleaded guilty to first-degree aggravated robbery for
his role in an incident in November 2015, when he took the victim’s shoes and wallet at
gunpoint. See Minn. Stat. § 609.245, subd. 1 (2014). The guidelines sentence for a
conviction of first-degree aggravated robbery is 48 months for a defendant with a criminal
history score of zero. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 4.A (2015). At sentencing, Hare moved for
a downward dispositional departure, explaining that he was remorseful and had no criminal
history. Further, while on release pending sentencing, he applied for employment and re-
enrolled in high school while under the tutelage of his family and other community
members. The state recommended the guidelines sentence, arguing that Hare minimized
his involvement with the offense, did not accept responsibility, and showed no remorse for
committing an extremely dangerous offense.
Before pronouncing sentence, the district court expressly found that “Hare hasn’t
been able to demonstrate particular amenability to probation” and that there were no
“substantial, unique, and compelling circumstances in this case.” Nonetheless, the district
court granted Hare’s motion for a downward dispositional departure, finding him amenable
to probation, although the district court told Hare, “Whether or not you are uniquely
amenable is something that’s going to be up to you to prove.” The district court stayed
2
execution of a 48-month prison term for 20 years and ordered him to serve 365 days in jail,
with credit for time served. The district court explained:
I am, and I recognize it’s not part of the rules, taking into
account your young age, your community support, given the
strong support you have from your father. The fact that you
seem on the verge of understanding the significance of what
happened here and how damaging it is to the community, to the
life of the person you attacked and your own life. And I’m just
finding this to be a situation where I want to take a chance on
you. But, it’s not very well supported by what you have done
so far.
The district court also noted that “in ordering the departure . . . I’m actually going
beyond what is permitted.” This appeal follows.
DECISION
We review the district court’s departure from a presumptive sentence for an abuse
of discretion. State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014). The sentences or
ranges of sentences in the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines are presumed to be
appropriate. Id. at 308. While the district court has great discretion when imposing a
sentence, the court must pronounce a guidelines sentence “unless there exist identifiable,
substantial, and compelling circumstances.” Id. (quotation omitted). By requiring the
district court to find substantial and compelling circumstances before departure, the
sentencing guidelines promote rationality, predictability, and consistency in sentencing.
See State v. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65-68 (Minn. 2002) (explaining that the purpose of
the guidelines is to reduce sentencing disparity); Minn. Sent. Guidelines 1.A (2015). The
district court must provide reasons why the departure is more appropriate than the
presumptive sentence. Taylor v. State, 670 N.W.2d 584, 588 (Minn. 2003). Absent such
3
a finding of substantial and compelling circumstances, the district court abuses its
discretion. Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 308.
Here, the district court’s reason for a departure was that Hare may be amenable to
probation, taking into account his age and support from the community, especially from
his father. But the district court did not make a finding of substantial and compelling
circumstances in this case. Instead, the district court departed from the presumptive
guidelines sentence even after it specifically found that these factors did not present
“substantial, unique and compelling circumstances in this case.”
Hare argues that the district court’s action in sentencing him to probation shows that
the district court considered him particularly amenable to probation and that the record
supports this finding. But it is not for this court to make findings regarding Hare’s
circumstances. That is the province of the district court. See Fontaine v. Steen, 759
N.W.2d 672, 679 (Minn. App. 2009). Without these findings, a departure from a
presumptive sentence is an abuse of discretion. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d at 72. This is
not to suggest that the district court’s failure to use the specific word “particularly” or
“particular” as a qualifier in reference to Hare’s amenability to probation is dispositive.
Appellate courts will not reverse a sentencing decision “as long as the record shows the
sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before
making a determination.” State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251, 255 (Minn. App. 2011)
(quotation omitted). But this record does not reflect that careful evaluation. It reflects an
attempt at judicial clemency beyond what the law permits, as the district court recognized
when granting the sentencing departure.
4
While the district court identified mitigating factors in Hare’s case, because it failed
to find that those factors presented a substantial or compelling reason to depart from the
guidelines sentence, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
Reversed and remanded.
5