Redwood County District Court File No. 64-CR-11-739
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Steven S. Collins, Redwood County Attorney, Ryan S. Hansch, Assistant County Attorney, Redwood Falls, Minnesota (for respondent)
Richard L. Swanson, Chaska, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Rodenberg, Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion for a downward durational or dispositional departure, as well as the district court's restitution award.
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing appellant and because appellant's restitution appeal is procedurally barred, we affirm.
On September 23, 2011, appellant Dale Larry Kramer rammed his father's car multiple times with his vehicle, causing a fracture in his father's neck and injuring his stepmother. A jury found Kramer guilty of second-degree assault in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1 (2010), and first-degree criminal damage to property in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.595, subd. 1(1) (2010). The sentencing guidelines provided for a presumptive sentence of 21 months, with a range of 18 to 25 months allowed without the need to substantiate departure. Kramer moved for a downward durational or dispositional departure.
The district court heard arguments for and against downward departure at the sentencing hearing. The district court sentenced Kramer to 25 months, concluding that Kramer is not amenable to probation based on his statements that he would rather go to prison than back down from a confrontation with his father and Kramer's lack of interest in anger management to address that relationship. The district court also noted that Kramer's age weighed against granting a departure, because "a middle age man . . . frankly should know better." It mentioned Kramer's prior record of non-felony "assaultive-type behavior" as a factor against departure, as well as Kramer's lack of remorse. The district court considered the factors of family support and cooperation with the district court, but concluded that they did "not result in substantial and compelling reasons to mitigate or to depart durationally downward."
Kramer's father and stepmother both submitted restitution claims. After sentencing, the district court noted that it could "anticipate already that there will be a need for, and there will certainly be a right to, a restitution hearing." The district court specifically found that Kramer has the ability to pay restitution. This appeal follows.
I. Did the district court abuse its discretion by not granting Kramer's motion ...