Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Erlandson

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

May 13, 2013

State of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Nathan Michael Erlandson, Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Stearns County District Court File No. 73-CR-11-9650

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Janelle P. Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, Michael J. Lieberg, Assistant County Attorney, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondent)

David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Michael W. Kunkel, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Stauber, Judge.

CONNOLLY, Judge

Appellant challenges his sentence, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by denying his request for a downward dispositional departure. Because we see no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

FACTS

In 2009, appellant Nathan Erlandson was placed on probation for felony third-degree assault and ordered to complete treatment that included Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT).[1] He did not begin DBT or the other treatment programs.

In October 2011, while on probation, appellant threatened his girlfriend's parents with a rifle when they came to the residence she shared with appellant. He pointed the rifle at them from a distance of about five feet; they backed away with their hands up. Following a five-hour stand-off, appellant surrendered to the police.

He pleaded guilty to one charge of felony second-degree assault and one charge of felony terroristic threats, agreeing to concurrent guideline sentences and reserving the right to argue for a downward dispositional departure. About this time, he began receiving DBT.

At the sentencing hearing, appellant moved for a downward dispositional departure, arguing that he had been receiving DBT for two months, that he requires DBT to deal with problems caused by his military service before he can benefit from other treatment programs, and that he could not receive DBT in prison because it is available only in the community. The district court denied his motion and imposed the executed concurrent sentences to which appellant agreed in the plea bargain.

Appellant argues that the denial was an abuse ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.