Louis County District Court File No. 69DU-CR-15-1884
Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Mark S.
Rubin, St. Louis County Attorney, Kristen E. Swanson,
Assistant County Attorney, Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sara J.
Euteneuer, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Hooten,
Judge; and Klaphake, Judge. [*]
upward sentencing departure based on a victim's
particular vulnerability may be imposed when the victim is
forced at gunpoint to disrobe during the commission of a
pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting aggravated robbery
after he and his accomplice broke into the victims' home,
forced the victims to undress, and robbed them at gunpoint.
The district court granted the state's motion for an
upward departure and sentenced appellant to the statutory
maximum of 240 months for aggravated robbery- more than
double the presumptive sentence. Appellant challenges the
district court's order denying his request for
resentencing. Because appellant's victims were forced at
gunpoint to undress during the commission of the crime, they
were particularly vulnerable, and we affirm in part. But we
reverse in part and remand for resentencing because severe
and aggravating circumstances do not exist to warrant a
greater-than-double upward sentencing departure.
appellant Guy Rabold's second sentencing appeal before
this court. The facts are set out in Rabold I and
are only briefly restated here. See State v. Rabold,
No. A16-1046, 2017 WL 957715 (Minn.App. Mar. 13, 2017),
review denied (Minn. May 16, 2017). In the middle of
a June 2015 night, Rabold and his accomplice broke into the
victims' home, waking them. When Rabold and his
accomplice reached the victims' bedroom door, they yelled
at the victims to open the door or they would shoot. After
entering the bedroom, with a gun in hand, Rabold's
accomplice ordered the victims to take off their clothes.
the victims were naked, Rabold placed a gun to the
victims' heads and ordered them to go downstairs where a
safe was located. Rabold instructed the naked male victim to
unlock the safe and then to lie down next to the naked female
victim while Rabold and his accomplice removed the contents
of the safe. Rabold told the victims not to move and
threatened to come back and kill them if they did. Rabold
fled with the contents of the safe. Police arrested him
admitted to police that he took part in the robbery. He told
police that he knew the victims, as he had previously dated
the female victim's daughter and had been to her home
before the night of the offense. He knew about the safe and
planned to steal its contents to pay off his debts.
state charged Rabold with aiding and abetting first-degree
aggravated robbery, among other crimes. He pleaded guilty to
all counts and waived his right under Blakely v.
Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), to a
jury trial to determine whether aggravating factors existed
for an upward sentencing departure.
bench trial to determine whether a sentencing departure was
appropriate, the district court determined that Rabold was a
danger to public safety and was a "dangerous
offender" under Minn. Stat. § 609.1095, subd. 2
(2014). The district court also determined that an upward
departure was justified based on the particular vulnerability
of the victims because they were ordered to undress. The
district court found that the victims' nudity made them
particularly vulnerable and that this vulnerability was a
substantial factor in completing the robbery.
sentencing hearing, the state requested the statutory maximum
sentence of 240 months for aggravated robbery, which was more
than double the presumptive sentence of 111
months. The state asked the district court to
impose the sentence solely based on the finding that Rabold
was a "dangerous offender" and without regard to
particular vulnerability. The district court imposed the
statutory maximum sentence of 240 months on the
aggravated-robbery conviction and sentenced Rabold to
concurrent prison terms on the other counts.
appealed the upward departure based on his status as a
dangerous offender and challenged one of the concurrent
sentences because it arose from the same behavioral incident.
In Rabold I, we affirmed Rabold's sentence, but
reversed and remanded to vacate the concurrent sentence as ...