70-CR-20-15925

Filed in District Court

State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF SCOTT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CRIMINAL DIVISION

STATE OF MINNESOTA,
Plaintiff,
-vs- STATE'S MEMORANDUM
TO RANK THE OFFENSE

Connie Lou Herbst,

Defendant. District Court File No. 70-CR-20-15925

TO: Connie Lou Herbst and John Baquero, Assistant Public Defender, 7344 Cedar
Avenue South, Richfield, MN 55423

INTRODUCTION

The Defendant, Connie Lou Herbst, is charged by complaint with one count of Aiding

and Abetting Second Degree Intentional Murder – Not Premeditated, pursuant to Minnesota

Statute § 609.19, Subd. 1(1). In addition, the State recently moved to amend the complaint to

add count two, Aiding and Offender – Accomplice After the Fact, pursuant to Minnesota Statute

§609.495, Subd. 3. The primary offender in the underlying offense is Defendant’s son, Austin

James Herbst. Austin Herbst was charged by complaint with one count of Aiding and Abetting

Second Degree Intentional Murder – Without Premeditation, and entered a straight plea to that

sole count on March 9, 2021. At Austin Herbst’s sentencing hearing on June 4, 2021, the State

recommended a prison commit term of 367 months, which represented a top of the guidelines

sentence based on no criminal history. A presumptive sentence for this offense was 306 months

with no criminal history. The Court sentenced Austin Herbst to prison for 150 months, which

represented a downward durational departure. The Court found that Austin Herbst killed his

-1-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

father, the victim, because Austin Herbst believed he had an obligation to protect Defendant,

who was not home during the incident.

Defendant subsequently obstructed the investigation into the murder of her husband by

providing false and misleading information to protect her son Austin Herbst, and to cover up his

involvement in the crime. Defendant also hindered the investigation by aiding Austin Herbst in

disposing of the victim’s body and lying about what occurred for years.

FACTS OF UNDERLYING MURDER AND INVESTIGATION

On December 3, 2017, the Barron County, Wisconsin, Sheriff’s Office received a call

that a homeowner discovered a human skull in the driveway of his residence, located in rural

Barron County, Wisconsin. At the scene, deputies observed that the skull was human and

appeared to have a bullet hole on the top of it. Deputies conducted a search of the area and

located human remains east of the residence, about 66 feet from the center of 10th Avenue, near

a field along the edge of the woods and adjacent to a field to the east. The remains appeared to

be part of human ribs, backbone, legs and other bones, some clothing, and a full set of dentures.

The remains were devoid of flesh and only skeletal. On December 13, 2017, the human remains

recovered from the field were taken to the Midwest Medical Examiner’s Office in Ramsey,

Minnesota.

Dr. Rebecca Asch-Kendrick, M.D., of the Midwest Medical Examiner’s Office,

concluded that the skull had a contact range gunshot wound. The cause of death was a gunshot

wound to the head. The trajectory was from the decedent’s left to right, front to back and

downwards. The victim was likely a male, likely European (White), but could not exclude some

Asian admixture, 30-65 years of age (greatest likelihood was 35-55), stature 70.5 plus or minus

four inches. The manner of death was undetermined.

-2-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

On January 11, 2018, the remains were then sent to the University of North Texas,

University of Texas Center for Human Identification, Forensic Anthropology Unit, in Fort

Worth, Texas. In a report dated March 5, 2018, the remains were most likely a male of European

(White) ancestry, 30-65 years of age, estimated stature of 70.5 plus or minus four inches. A

projectile had entered the left parietal; near the midpoint of the sagittal suture, due to a gunshot

wound.

On March 21, 2019, Barron County deputies sent bone samples to DNA Solutions Inc., in

Oklahoma City, OK, for DNA extraction and forensic genealogy using familial DNA. On

February 24, 2020, Barron County detectives received notification for the DNA Doe project, a

nonprofit organization, which uses genealogical research to identify “John and Jane Does,” that

the skeletal remains were believed to have an ancestral link to the State of Wisconsin. On

February 27, 2020, Barron County detectives received information from the DNA Doe Project

that a possible match for the remains was the victim, Gary Albert Herbst, Defendant’s husband

and Austin Herbst’s father.

Detectives learned that Gary and Defendant were married in Butternut, Wisconsin; they

moved to Richfield, MN in 1980, and then to Elko New Market in 1981. Gary worked at various

machining jobs in the Twin Cities Metro area, and Defendant worked as a cook. Sometime in

the mid-1990’s, Defendant purchased a .45 caliber Sig Sauer pistol.

Barron County detectives discovered that Gary was reported as a missing person from

Elko New Market, Scott County, Minnesota. According to the report dated March 25, 2014,

Gary had been missing since July 6, 2013. However, a police report was not filed with the Elko

New Market police until July 6, 2014, twelve months later. Defendant made the report on the

suggestion of Gary’s brother, who was trying to contact him. Defendant reported that sometime

-3-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

in early July 2013, Gary came home to their residence at 347 Wagner Way, Elko New Market,

Scott County, Minnesota, and packed some clothing and took $5,000 in cash. He then left in a

grey Honda vehicle driven by an unknown person. Defendant said Gary left his cell phone and

she had not heard from him since. This entire report was intentionally misleading and fabricated.

On February 28, 2020, police officers from Minnesota and Wisconsin located Defendant

and Austin Herbst and obtained known buccal swabs for DNA comparison. Both consented to

give statements. Defendant then stated:

x On July 6, 2013, Gary left home and never returned.

x Defendant was at the library when Austin Herbst called and told her that his dad left.

x Defendant returned to the house and found the bedroom had been ransacked.

x Taken from the room was Gary’s clothing, $5000 cash, and a .45 caliber Sig Sauer pistol

(which she owned), and her wedding ring.

x Austin Herbst told Defendant that Gary left in a grey car with an unknown person.

x Defendant said Gary was frequently unemployed and was verbally and physically

abusive to her, and occasionally to Austin Herbst.

This entire statement was intentionally misleading and fabricated.

Officers also spoke with Austin Herbst, who stated:

x He is the only child of Gary and Defendant and they all lived together at 347 Wagner

Way, Elko New Market.

x Gary left them when he was 18.

x He hasn’t seen or heard from Gary since he left.

x When he turned seventeen or eighteen years old, things got a lot more tense between his

mother and father.

-4-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

x He didn’t recall the exact day, month, or year, but his father came home and immediately

packed his belongings.

x He left and got into a gray or silver pickup, and left behind his own 2010 Chevy

Silverado pickup.

x The vehicle was driven by an unknown person.

x He called his mother and told her.

x His mother came home and found some money was missing.

x He has not heard from his dad since and doesn’t know where he is.

x He said Gary usually wore jeans, a t-shirt and belt.

x His father had a full set of dentures.

On March 16, 2020, results from the Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory comparing

Defendant and Austin Herbst’s buccal swab to the DNA profile obtained from the human

remains in Barron County, concluded that it was at least 87 trillion times more likely to observe

the profile from Austin Herbst if the questioned profile from the human remains is from his

biological father than from a random unrelated male.

On June 16, 2020, Wisconsin officers re-interviewed both Defendant and Austin Herbst.

Austin Herbst stated:

x He did not have a good relationship with Gary.

x Defendant wasn’t home when Gary left in a gray or silver pickup.

x When Defendant returned home, she found the money was missing.

x It was unusual for Gary not to take the pickup.

x Gary has never left for an extended period of time before.

-5-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

x He was reported missing because Gary’s mother died, and Gary’s family needed to settle

the estate.

x He said he failed to tell the police that he did see the person who drove the pickup truck

when his dad left, and the person was a male with a black shirt and several tattoos.

x He denied he would commit patricide, saying he knew the term from on-line gaming.

x He knew the truth about what happened but would not divulge it at this time.

Defendant then falsely stated to detectives:

x When officers confronted her with a car title for Gary’s 2003 Chevy Impala, which was

sold and retitled in Wisconsin, with Gary’s signature and a date of December 2, 2017,

four years after he went missing, Defendant said that Gary routinely pre-signed all his

vehicle titles and pre-dated them.

On June 29, 2020 Wisconsin officers interviewed several neighbors who recalled Gary

when he resided at 347 Wagner Way, Elko New Market, Scott County, Minnesota. One neighbor

reported:

x He lived across the street from the Herbst family for some time.

x Gary was a difficult neighbor; he would frequently yell profanities at neighbors and call

the police for minor issues.

x One rare time he was very sociable and proud after he purchased a new pickup.

x Defendant and Austin Herbst held a garage sale, for which Gary was not present, selling

mostly men’s clothing and various tools. (Gary was a mechanic by profession).

x In subsequent weeks and months, Defendant and Austin Herbst were much more active in

the neighborhood, than when Gary was around.

-6-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

On June 29, 2020, officers spoke with several other former neighbors of the Herbst’s,

who all reported the following similar story:

x While Gary was there, they didn’t see many visitors, and didn’t see Defendant or Austin

Herbst go out often. After Gary was gone, they saw Defendant and Austin Herbst going

outside more often and more kids would come over.

x When Gary purchased a new truck, he invited one of the neighbors to come over and look

at it, which was very uncharacteristic.

x On August 30, 2013, Defendant and Austin Herbst had a garage sale and sold Gary’s

tools and clothing.

x In Mid-August 2013 they observed a black pickup parked in the back yard of the Herbst

residence, backed up to the sliding glass door on the grass.

x Defendant and Austin Herbst loaded something in the back of the pickup, possibly rolled

up carpeting.

x After finishing, they hooked the boat onto the truck and left for about 1-3 days.

x After Defendant and Austin Herbst returned from fishing, they did not see Gary at the

house again.

On June 29, 2020 Scott County Deputies and members of the Minnesota BCA Forensic

Science Laboratory, after receiving permission from the new owners of 347 Wagner Way, Elko

New Market, Scott County, MN, conducted a search of the Herbst’s former home. The current

homeowners told officers that while remodeling the basement in August 2019, they discovered a

stain on the concrete floor that seemed unusual. Officers had a cadaver dog search the residence,

and the dog gave indicators of the presence of human decomposition near the sliding glass door

in the basement, as well as the north wall of the garage. Forensic Scientists did a presumptive

-7-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

chemical test for the presence of human blood on the stain on the concrete floor in the basement,

which rendered a positive result.

On June 30, 2020, investigators spoke with Gary’s former employer, SG, at RL Tool in

Bloomington, MN. SG confirmed that the last day Gary worked was July 8, 2013, when he

completed his shift at 3:00 p.m. The next day Gary didn’t show up for work, at which point he

simply stopped showing up and SG never heard from Gary again.

On July 9, 2020, officers executed a search warrant at 347 Wagner Way, Elko New

Market, Scott County, MN. The BCA personnel used Luminol, which reacts with blood, in the

residence on the following locations, where they discovered a presumptive positive test:

x The drywall directly next to the stain on the concrete floor in the basement.

x The wood studs behind the drywall.

x Lower track and door area of the sliding glass door leading out of the basement.

x A small stain on the floor north side of the garage (where the cadaver dog indicated).

x Rubber mats that were previously in the basement.

On July 28, 2020 Scott County Deputies and New Prague Police Officers executed a

search warrant at Defendant and Austin Herbst’s residence in New Prague, MN. During the

search, the police seized numerous electronic devices. Investigators interviewed Austin Herbst

again, and he stated:

x His father spent a lot of time in the basement in his workshop.

x They went camping that weekend and there was nothing wrong with the boat motor in

northern Wisconsin at the Turtle Flowage Lake. (Which contradicted Defendant, who

stated they did not go camping because the boat motor was not operable).

x They drove his father’s silver truck.

-8-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

x When asking about the Sig .45 caliber handgun, and safety concerns, Austin Herbst stated

no one would ever get hurt with the gun because it was safe in “60 feet of water” in the

“Flambeau Flowage.”

x Austin Herbst said he would be able to show investigators its approximate location.

x When asked if he threw it from shore or the side of a boat, he stated, he needed to speak

with his mother before answering.

x The last year and particularly the months prior to the summer of 2013, things had gotten

far worse in their home.

x His father was far more verbally and physically abusive toward his mother.

x He intervened many times and basically became his mother’s protector.

x He wanted to speak with his mother before he spoke with investigators, and to ask her

what would happen to his job and the dogs.

Throughout the interview, Austin Herbst never denied involvement in his father’s

homicide.

Defendant then spoke with investigators for about 90 minutes and offered no new

information. Defendant eventually requested an attorney and the interview ended.

An examination of both Defendant and Austin Herbst’s cell phones revealed that:

x On June 24, 2020 at 10:33 a.m., Defendant texted Austin Herbst, “It was on Channel 9

News last night.” (On June 23, 2020, Barron County Sheriff’s Office issued a press

release on the remains being identified and investigated as a homicide.)

x On July 18, 2020, at 3:03 p.m., Defendant texted Austin Herbst, “You need to call me

ASAP, actually right away.”

-9-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

x On July 18, 2020 at 3:37 p.m., Defendant texted Austin Herbst, “Might have a problem,

they are searching 347. Don’t mean to fuck up your vacation just wanted u to know. It’s

in the paper.” The investigation showed that on July 18, 2020, Austin Herbst was on

vacation with friends at the Flambeau Flowage in Wisconsin. Interviews with Austin

Herbst’s friends confirmed he took a phone call from his mother.

The State will request that Defendant’s offense be ranked at a severity level 9. Between

1981 – 2018, the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission has ranked this offense at a

severity level 8 in one hundred cases. It has been ranked at a severity level 9 in forty-two cases.

It has been ranked at a severity level 10 in fourteen cases. It has been ranked as a severity level

11 in four cases. See MSGC 2018 Unranked Offenses: Frequency and Severity of Unranked

Offenses Sentenced 1981-2018 (May 29, 2020) (attached).

ARGUMENT

Defendant's Offense Of Aiding An Offender - Accomplice

After The Fact Should Be Ranked At A Severity Level 9

The State has moved to amend the complaint to charge Defendant with an unranked

offense in Count Two, Aiding an Offender – Accomplice After The Fact, pursuant to Minn. Stat.

§609.495, Subd. 3. The Court “must assign an appropriate severity level for the offense and

specify on the record why that particular level was assigned” prior to sentencing. Minn. Sent.

Guidelines 2.A.4 (Supp. 2017). When assigning a severity level, the Minn. Sent. Guidelines

established the following non-exhaustive factors for the court to consider:

a. the gravity of the specific conduct underlying the unranked offense;

b. the severity level assigned to any ranked offense with elements that are similar
to the elements of the unranked offense;
c. the conduct of and severity level assigned to other offenders for the same
unranked offense; and
d. the severity level assigned to other offenders engaged in similar conduct.

-10-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

“No single factor is controlling nor is the list of factors meant to be exhaustive.” State v.

Kenard, 606 N.W.2d 440, 443 (Minn. 2000).

In Kenard, the Minnesota Supreme Court extracted three elements that justify an

increased severity level, including whether the offender (1) was present at the time of the

underlying offense; (2) participated in some degree in the underlying offense; or (3) readily

participated in covering up the underlying offense. Id. at 445.

In ascertaining the correct severity level for Aiding an Offender - Accomplice After The

Fact, it is noteworthy that the statutory maximum is "not more than one-half of the statutory

maximum sentence of imprisonment or to payment of a fine of not more than one-half of the

maximum fine that could be imposed on the principal offender. Minn. Stat. §609.495, Subd. 3.

In this case, the principal offender is Austin Herbst. Austin Herbst pleaded guilty and was

sentenced to Aiding and Abetting Second Degree Intentional Murder – Without Premeditation.

The statutory maximum for that offense is 40 years imprisonment. Defendant Connie Herbst's

statutory maximum for this offense is therefore 20 years imprisonment.

Defendant meets two of the three elements to justify an increased severity level.

Defendant was not present at the time of the underlying offense, according to Austin Herbst’s

factual basis during his plea hearing. However, Defendant participated in some degree in the

underlying offense because she presumably provided the handgun used to murder the victim. In

addition, Defendant readily participated in covering up the underlying offense shortly after it

occurred, and continually lied to investigators on multiple occasions for years following the

murder. Therefore, the State is requesting a severity level ranking of 9. With a zero criminal

history score, the sentence range would be 74 - 103 months. The presumptive commit is 86

months. A ranking of 9 is appropriate given the fact that Defendant readily participated in the

-11-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

prolonged cover-up afterward. Her participation in the cover-up was voluntary, continuous,

remorseless, and did not end even after her arrest.

I. Gravity of Specific Conduct Underlying the Unranked Offense

The underlying conduct is Intentional Murder in the Second Degree – Without

Premeditation. There is no crime more grave and more final than homicide. In this case,

Defendant's own conduct exhibited a high level of gravity because she was aware that her son

Austin Herbst used her handgun to execute his father while Defendant was away at the library.

After Defendant returned home and her son told her what he had done, Defendant failed to seek

medical attention for the victim, failed to notify authorities, and failed to do anything other than

engage in a years-long cover up of the heinous crime that had occurred. Defendant made the

choice to help a known murderer cover-up his participation in the crime to presumably help him

avoid apprehension and accountability.

II. Severity Level Assigned to Any Ranked Offense with Elements that are Similar

In the State’s amended complaint, Count Two charges Defendant under Minn. Stat.

§609.495, Subd. 3. A ranked offense with similar elements would be Aiding an Offender to

Avoid Arrest under Minn. Stat. §609.495, Subd. 1. This is the correct offense for which to

compare the unranked offense; however, a severity level 1 should not be the ranking for

Defendant’s offense because elements exist to justify an increased severity level.

The severity level assigned to Aiding an Offender to Avoid Arrest under Minn. Stat.

§609.495, Subd. 1 is a severity level 1. The maximum penalty for that offense is 3 years and/or

$5000 fine or both. Under the Minn. Sent. Guidelines, it is a presumptive stay of 12 months and

1 day if the offender has a zero criminal history score.

-12-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Aiding an Offender to Avoid Arrest under subdivision 1 can be easily distinguished from

Aiding an Offender to Obstruct Investigation under subdivision 3. The offenses under

subdivision 3 relate more specifically to aiding an offender that commits a crime of violence.

Crimes of violence include all crimes listed under Minn. Stat. §609.11, Subd. 9. Minn. Stat.

§609.495, Subd. 3 is likely an unranked offense because the offense covers a wide range of

underlying conduct. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.A.4 (comment). Defendant's offense should

not be ranked at a severity level 1 because Defendant participated in some degree in the

underlying offense, and Defendant actively and readily participated in covering up the

underlying offense for years-on-end. Additionally, the legislature intended for convictions under

Minn. Stat. §609.495, Subd. 1(a) to deal with considerably less serious underlying crimes. See

State v. Kenard, 606 N.W.2d at 444. Therefore, it is logical that crimes committed under

subdivision 3 should be given a higher severity ranking. The correct ranking for Defendant's

offense, based on all factors, is nothing less than a severity level ranking of 9.

III. The Conduct of and Severity Level Assigned to Other Offenders for the
Same Unranked Offense and Engaged in Similar Conduct

The last two factors from Kenard are often analyzed together. In this case, Defendant's

conduct should be compared with other offenders that were ranked at a severity level 8 or higher

and compared against offenders that were present or participated in the underlying offense or

participated in the cover up when the primary offender committed a homicide. The court

engaged in similar analysis in Kenard, where it reviewed the four factors suggested in Minn.

Sent. Guidelines 2.A.4 for ranking unranked offenses. Kenard was convicted of Aiding an

Offender under Minn. Stat. §609.495, Subds. 1 and 3. Her offense, under subdivision 1, was

ranked at a severity level 1. Her offense under subdivision 3 was originally ranked at a severity

level 7. After appeal, Kenard's severity level rank was reduced to a severity level 1 because the

-13-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Court found she did not participate in the underlying offense, she was not present when the

underlying offense occurred, and she did not readily participate in the cover-up. Rather, the

Court found her offense to be less serious because the murder was "thrust upon Kenard in her

own home." State v. Kenard, 606 N.W.2d at 445.

Defendant's case is similar to Kenard as it relates to the first two factors but differs

greatly on the last two factors. In Kenard, the gravity of the specific conduct underlying the

unranked offense was the same - homicide. The similar ranked offense with which the court

compared the unranked offense was the same - Aiding an Offender to Avoid Arrest per Minn.

Stat. §609.495, Subd. 1(a). Defendant's case differs from Kenard though when looking at the

conduct of and severity level assigned to other offenders for the same unranked offense; and the

severity level assigned to other offenders engaged in similar conduct. In particular, Defendant

did not have to participate in the cover-up; she chose to participate in the cover-up. Defendant's

conduct was voluntary and intentional. Defendant's conduct is also greater in scope and is more

egregious than that of Kenard's.

Kenard's conduct was significantly less serious than Defendant’s conduct. Kenard only

helped clean up the victim's blood after the victim was murdered in her home while she was

away. She arrived home with her two small children to find blood splatter everywhere inside her

apartment and a dead body. Thereafter, she held open doors while the victim's body was

removed from her apartment and from the building. She initially provided misleading

information to police early in the investigation.

By contrast, Defendant readily participated in covering up the underlying offense and her

son’s participation in the offense. Defendant even traveled across state lines to rural Wisconsin

to dispose of her husband’s body. Defendant continuously and actively provided false and

-14-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

misleading information from March 2014 at the time of filing her husband’s missing person’s

report, through her arrest in November 2020. This erroneous information included providing

false information to law enforcement investigators from Minnesota and Wisconsin about the

whereabouts of the victim, especially as it pertained to her knowledge of her son’s actions, and

the removal and disposal of the victim’s body. All of her false statements were done to

presumably shield her son from any accountability. These actions show that Defendant was a

willing and active participant.

Finally, in comparing the severity level assigned to other offenders engaged in similar

conduct, the Kenard Court examined cases involving Arneatrice Shaw (Henn. Cty File No. 98-

123289) - ranked at a level 1, Antonio Brayboy (Henn. Cty. File No. 96-071357) - ranked at a

level 8, Eugene Meyers (Benton Cty. File No. K9096-521) - ranked at a level 8, Sathith

Mevangsaksith (Henn. Cty. File No. 97-015813) - ranked at a level 7, Frank Soman (Ramsey

Cty. File No. K3-96-4229) - ranked at a level 7, and Nickie Frank (Henn. Cty File No. 98-

095728) - ranked at a level 8; and Stacy Koerner (Henn. Cty. File No. 98-095714) - ranked at a

level 8.

Factors that caused Brayboy, Myers, Frank and Koerner, Mevangsaksith and Soman to be

ranked higher than Kenard included the offender was either: (1) present at the time of the

underlying offense; (2) participated to some degree in the underlying offense; or (3) readily

participated in covering up the underlying offense. Kenard, 606 N.W.2d at 445. These three

elements were identified as severity level ranking enhancers.

Shaw's case was similar to Kenard's because the offenses were thrust upon each

defendant in their own homes. Other defendants, such as Myers, Brayboy, Frank and Koerner

readily assisted or actively participated in the underlying offenses and therefore, those offenses

-15-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

were ranked at a severity level 8. The conduct of those defendants, like that of Defendant, was

more serious than that of Kenard.

Defendant’s case is similar to that of Myers, Brayboy, Frank and Koerner but her actions

are even more serious. Defendant's involvement was more prolonged and more sophisticated.

Defendant's conduct included: (1) knowingly filing a false missing person police report to cover

up the fact that she knew her son murdered her husband; (2) actively assisted her son in

disposing of the victim’s body in rural Wisconsin; (3) misleading police as to her knowledge of

what her son had done; and (4) providing false and misleading information continuously to law

enforcement to presumably protect her son and to help him evade responsibility for what he had

done. To date, even after her son pleaded guilty to the offense, Defendant has never given a

truthful statement of what her son told her he did and her participation in the crime.

Myers conduct was limited as compared to the conduct of Defendant. Myers drove a

stolen van while two others beat the owner of the van severely. Myers then helped the two

others drag the injured victim into the woods where the victim was left to die. Brayboy's

conduct was also more limited. Brayboy denied active participation in the brutal slaying of three

people but acknowledged being present at the scene and helping the perpetrator flee. Both Frank

and Koerner's conduct was more limited than Defendant's conduct. Frank and Koerner each

attempted to conceal a brutal rape and murder of a thirteen-year-old girl. They were called by

the perpetrator after the murder and asked to help dispose of the victim's body. Frank provided

the car, and both helped dispose of the body. Like Defendant, Frank and Koerner readily

assisted the murderer when asked. Unlike Frank and Koerner, Defendant continuously engaged

in conduct to assist the murderer with the cover-up, as the lies and misleading statements were

ongoing for years.

-16-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Mevangsaksith and Soman's offenses were ranked at a severity level 7, but their offenses

arose as a result of their involvement in less serious underlying offenses. The underlying offense

in their cases was robbery - not murder. Mevangsaksith drove a car for friends who robbed two

people at gunpoint. Soman was present during a robbery and grabbed some marijuana as he and

another fled. Based on these rankings, it is clear that Defendant should not be ranked at a

severity level 7. Defendant’s underlying offense is more serious and her continual involvement

and active participation in the years-long cover-up is significantly greater.

After reviewing the cases analyzed in Kenard, it is clear that Defendant's offense should

not be ranked lower than 8. The State is requesting a severity level ranking of 9. The severity

level ranking of 9 acknowledges all of Defendant's on-going and egregious conduct.

Additionally, Defendant’s conduct is commensurate with the sentencing guidelines maximum of

103 months. Again, if Defendant's offense is ranked at a severity level 9 then the presumptive

commitment to the commissioner is 86 months with a range between 74 - 103 months.

Cases recently ranked at severity levels between 8 - 10 include: Terrance Terrell

Coleman (aka Terrance Terrell Smith)(Henn. Cty. File No. 27-CR-11-480) ranked at a severity

level 8. Isai Flores (Henn. Cty. File No. 27-CR-09-30815) ranked at a severity level 10. Devin

Donald James Thunder (Henn. Cty. File No. 27-CR-08-26831) ranked at a severity level 10.

Jesus Jacobo (Dakota Cty. File No. HA-CR-08-2458) ranked at a severity level 9. Benjamin

Edward King (St. Louis Cty File No. K2-1600428) ranked at a severity level 10.

Terrance Terrell Coleman's case involved a robbery for drugs that ended in a fatal

shooting. Coleman's brother was the gunman. Coleman was present in the vehicle that drove to

meet the victim but was not present in the location of the actual shooting. Coleman lied to police

on more than one occasion and tried to provide an alibi for his brother. Prior to testifying before

-17-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

the Grand Jury he provided a truthful statement to police that implicated his brother. Coleman

then testified truthfully before the Grand Jury. Coleman was convicted of violating Minn. Stat.

§609.495, Subd. 3. His offense was ranked at a severity level 8. Clearly, Defendant's conduct is

more egregious because she lied to police numerous times to intentionally mislead the

investigation, and to actively protect her son for the murder she knew he committed; and she has

never provided a truthful statement. Her offense should also be ranked at least a severity level 9.

Devin Donald James Thunder was present at the scene when an associate shot and killed

the victim during a drug deal. He gave three versions of event to police. He was convicted of

violating Minn. Stat. §609.495, Subd. 3. His offense was ranked at a severity level 10.

Isai Flores was present and provided the gun used to shoot a passing motorist in the head.

Flores avoided police to avoid being a witness against the shooter. Flores absconded without

giving a statement to police. The shooter was convicted prior to Flores being apprehended.

Flores was convicted of violating Minn. Stat. §609.495, Subd. 3. Flores's offense was ranked at

a severity level 10.

Benjamin King was present during the offense and removed money and drugs from the

victim's body after his associate shot and killed the victim. His offense was ranked at a severity

level 10.

Jesus Jacobo was present when the victim was shot and lied to police regarding being

present and regarding the last time he spoke with the shooter. He was convicted of violating

Minn. Stat. §609.495, Subd. 3. His offense was ranked at a severity level 9.

When the Court compares the various aforementioned cases and conduct involved it is

reasonable and fair that Defendant's offense be ranked at a severity level 9. None of the cases

discussed above involve such prolonged participation and level of sophisticated deception as

-18-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Defendant has displayed. Most recently, using the factors in Kenard, the Minnesota Court of

Appeals upheld the severity level ranking of a 9 for a defendant who drove the shooter away

from the scene of a murder. State v. Laster, 2020 WL 1846510 (April 13, 2020) (attached).

Then again, applying the Kenard factors, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the severity

level of 9 for a defendant who helped drive the shooter away from a murder scene while the

shooter still had the firearm. Cooper v. State, 2018 WL 1787689 (April 16, 2018) (attached).

Accordingly, Defendant's offense should also be ranked at least a severity level 9.

IV. Elements That Justify An Increased Severity Level

Once the Court examines factors to determine a correct ranking for an unranked offense,

it should also evaluate whether any elements exist to enhance the severity level. Elements

identified in Kenard included whether the secondary offender was: (1) present at the time of the

underlying offense; (2) participated to some degree in the underlying offense; or (3) readily

participated in covering up the underlying offense. State v. Kenard, 606 N.W.2d at 445. These

three elements were identified as severity level ranking enhancers.

Defendant technically meets two of the elements to justify an increased severity level.

First, she indirectly participated in the murder because the murder weapon was a handgun that

purportedly belonged to her. Second, Defendant readily participated in covering up the

underlying offense. Her participation in the cover-up was voluntary, sophisticated, prolonged,

and detailed. Her misleading statements to law enforcement were readily consistent. Defendant's

participation was voluntarily and continual with the purpose to help avoid implicating her son as

the murderer; and to protect him from being arrested and held accountable for his crime.

Like Flores (severity level 10), Defendant was presumably trying to avoid being a

witness against the murderer. Like Coleman (severity level 8) and Thunder (severity level 10),

-19-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Defendant gave numerous false and misleading statements. Unlike Coleman, Defendant has

never provided the truth of what happened. Unlike Kenard, Defendant made the choice to

become involved in concealing a murder.

The Court should rank Defendant's crime higher than a level 8 because her conduct was

greater in scope than offenses ranked at a level 8. Her participation was on-going and was much

more elaborate, sophisticated and deceptive than even the other cases ranked at a severity level

10. Defendant told numerous lies, from filing the false missing person police report to

misleading the Minnesota and Wisconsin investigators during her statements on several

occasions. There are no excuses for her conduct. It is not a defense to allege she lied to avoid

implicating herself in the crime. The right against self-incrimination does not equate with the

right to lie to or intentionally mislead police. U.S. v. Rodriguez-Rios, 14 F.3d 1040, 1049 (5th

Cir. 1994) ("Although the Fifth Amendment protects a person's right to remain silent in response

to an incriminating question, an outright lie is not protected."); see also Bryson v. U.S., 396

U.S.64, 72, 90 S.Ct. 355, 360, 24 L.Ed.2d 264 (1969)(observing that "[a] citizen may decline to

answer the question, or answer it honestly, but he cannot with impunity knowingly and willfully

answer with a falsehood"). The only explanation for all of Defendant's lies and omissions was

that she wanted to cover up her son’s decision to murder his father by shooting him in the head

execution-style while he slept on their living room couch. She wanted to help her son avoid

being arrested. She wanted to obstruct justice.

Defendant made the choice to lie and mislead investigators1. Defendant's lies and

omissions were intended to protect her son, deceive police, and to prevent her son’s

1
This is not the first time Defendant has provided false information to police to protect her son. On November 18,
2014, Austin Herbst was involved in a car accident after he had consumed alcohol. Austin Herbst’s vehicle ended up
in a ditch and he fled the scene. Shortly after the crash, police located Defendant driving a vehicle very slowly in

-20-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

apprehension on murder charges. All of Defendant’s actions were done with the purpose of

obstructing a very serious cold-case homicide investigation. Defendant’s conduct was

intentional and egregious, and as such a severity level ranking of 9 is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Defendant readily participated in the cover-up of a brutal murder, and actively worked to

obstruct the investigation and prosecution of her son Austin Herbst. Her actions were elaborate,

prolonged, sophisticated, voluntary, and intentional. Accordingly, the State is requesting

Defendant’s offense of Aiding and Offender – Accomplice After The Fact be ranked at a severity

level 9.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 12, 2021 /s/ Sarah Wendorf

_______________________________________
Sarah Wendorf
Scott County Attorney’s Office
200 Fourth Avenue West
Shakopee, MN 55379

the area where Austin Herbst’s vehicle was found in the ditch. Defendant lied to police and said she believed Austin
Herbst was currently at home sleeping.

-21-
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State v. Laster Cases Minnesota] Westlaw
| I Page 1 ofState
7 of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

We‘ve updated our Privacy Statement. Before you continue, please read our new Privacy Statement and familiarize yourself with [he terms.

WESTL flaw CLQSSiC

2020 WL 1846510
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED AS UNPUBLISHED AND MAYNOT BE CITED

st a t e V. L as tNOTICE:
er
Court of Appeals of Minnesota. i
Apnfissiggg‘ AfiollggpggeDdElnDNW lerNN2§% fi$m§%%%k 7pages)
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. §
480A.o8, subd. 3 (2018).
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

V.
Vance Diwayne LASTER, Sn, Appellant.

A19-1216
Filed April 13, 2020
Review Denied July 23, 2020

Benton County District Court. File No. 05-CR-1 8-618

Attorneys and Law Firms

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Peter Magnuson, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul.
Mlnnesota; and Phitip K. Miller. Benton County Attorney, Foley. Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook. Chief Appellate Public Defender. Sara J. Euteneuer. Assistant Public
Defender. St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Florey. Presiding Judge; Worke. Judge; and Larkin. Judge.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

LARKIN. Judge

*1 On appeal from his conviction and sentence for aiding an offender—accomplice after the

fact, appellant challenges the district court's assignment of severity level nine when
sentencing him for that offense and its denial of his presentence motion to withdraw his
guilty plea. We affirm.

FACTS
ln March 2018, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Vance Diwayne Laster Sr.
with aiding and abetting second-degree murder, third-degree murder, first-degree assault,
and second-degree arson.

The complaint alleged that J,Dl and N.P. were shot near a Sauk Rapids residence during the
early morning hours 0t February 16, 2018, and that Laster drove W.W. and N.Jl from the
crime scene in J.Di's vehicle. J.D. died from multiple gunshot wounds. The complaint
alleged that shortly after the shooting, W,W., N.J., and a third person arrived at a gas station
in a vehicle registered t0 P.L. W.W. and N.J. purchased a gas can, filled it with gas. and then
left the gas station without paying for the gas. Less than ten minutes later, the St. Cloud Fire
Department responded to a call of a vehicle on fire nearby, which police later learned was
J.D.'s vehicle.

In June 2018, a grand jury indicted Laster on 15 counts, including first-degree murder,

second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, first-degree assault, second-

degree arson, and crime committed for the benefit of a gang. In October 2018. the state
moved to amend the indictment to add a charge of aiding an offender—accomplice after the
fact under Minn. Stat. § 609.495, subd. 3 (2016). In November 2018, Laster agreed to plead
guilty to aiding an offender—accomplice after the fact "with the understanding that it would
be sentenced at a severity level 9" and to testify at his codefendants’ trials. In exchange. the

https ://1 .nextwestlaw.com/Document/Iad746bfll7dcc1 1ea99df8ae8 89484d86/View/FullTe. .. 7/12/2021

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State v. Laster Cases Minnesota Westlaw
| [ | Page 2 ofState
7 of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

state agreed to dismiss the other charges and cap Laster's sentence at 158 months of
imprisonment.

At the plea hearing, Laster explained his involvement in the offense as follows. Laster,
W.W.. N.J., J.D., and N.P. drove to a bar ln St. Paul in the late evening hours of February
15, 2018, and drove to J.D.'s sister's house in Sauk Rapids in the early morning hours the
next day‘ Laster was asleep when they arrived at J.D.’s sister’s house, but he woke when he
heard J.D. call his name. Laster saw J.D. outside the vehicle struggling with W.W. Laster
heard a gunshot and opened the door of the vehicle to investigate. Laster saw N.P. get out
of the vehicle during the struggle between J.D. and W.W. and heard additional gunshots.
Laster saw W.W. holding a gun and saw J.D. and N.P. lying on the ground. Laster drove
W.W. and N.J. from the scene in J.D.‘s vehicle, stopped in St. Cloud to switch to an
acquaintance‘s vehicle, and then drove W.W. and N.J. to a gas station in St. Cloud. Laster
denied helping W.W. and N.J. set J.D.’s vehicle on fire. However, Laster admitted that he
saw W.W. holding a gas can when he left the gas station and that he drove W.W. and N.J.
back to J.D.'s vehicle before W.W. and N.J. allegedly burned it. The district court found that
Laster had established an adequate factual basis for his guilty plea, deferred acceptance of
that plea, and scheduled a sentencing hearing.

*2 Before sentencing, Laster submitted a "sentencing motlon," requesting that the district
court assign a severity level of eight to his aiding-an-offender offense, or. in the alternative,
allow him to withdraw his plea. At sentencing, Laster noted that N.J. had only been
convlcted of arson after his trial and received a 23-month stayed sentence. Laster argued
that It was unfair to require him to serve 158 months in prison when the person who was
convlcted of the underlying arson received a much lighter sentence. The district court
assigned a severity level of nine to Lester's alding-an-oflender offense, denied his motion to
wlthdraw his guilty plea, and sentenced him to serve 158 months in prison, consistent with
the plea agreement. Laster appeals.

DECISION

I.
Laster contends that the district court abused its discretion by assigning a severity level of
nlne to the unranked offense of aiding an offender—accomplice after the fact. ‘

Before a dlstrlct court sentences a defendant for a felony-level offense, the district court
must calculate a presumptive sentence based on the severity level of the offense and the
offender’s criminal history. State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 666 (Minn. 2006); see Minn.
Sent. Guidelines 2.C.1 (Supp. 2017) ("The presumptive sentence for a felony conviction ls
found In the appropriate ceil on the applicable [sentencing guidelines] Grid located at the

Intersection of the criminal history score (horizontal axis) and the severity level (vertical
axls)."). Although most offenses have an assigned severity level, certain offenses have not
been assigned a severity level because “(1) the offense is rarely prosecuted; (2) the offense
covers a wide range of undertying conduct; or (3) the offense is new and the severity of a
typical offense cannot yet be determined." Minn. Sent. Guidelines cmt. 2.A.04 (Supp. 2017).
Aiding an offender—accomplice after the fact is designated as an unranked offense under
the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines 5.A (Supp. 2017).

When a district court sentences an offense that is designated as an unranked offense. the
court “must assign an appropriate severity level for the offense and specify on the record
why that particular levei was assigned." Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.A.4 (Supp. 2017). When
assigning a severity level. the district court may consider:

a. the gravity of the specific conduct underlying the unranked offense;

b. the severity level assigned to any ranked offense with elements that are similar to the

elements of the unranked offense;

c. the conduct of and severity level assigned to other offenders for the same unranked
offense; and

d. the severity level assigned to other offenders engaged in similar conduct.

Id. “No single factor is controlling nor is the list of factors meant to be exhaustive." State v.
Kenard, 606 N.W.2d 440, 443 (Minn. 2000). This court reviews a district court’s severity-
level determination for an abuse of discretion. Bensch, 707 N.W.2d at 666.

Gravity of the Underlying Conduct

https :// 1 .next.westlaw.com/Document/Iad746bf07dcc1 lea99d18a68 89484d86/View/FullTe. .. 7/12/2021

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State v. Laster Cases Minnesota Westlaw
I I | Page 3 ofState
7 of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

The distric‘ court based its severity ranking, in part, on the gravity of the underlying conduct,
which it described as follows:

The gravity of Mr_ Lester's actions were great in this case. Other cases in which courts
have determined that aiding an offender merits a high severity level, as pointed out in the
State’s memorandum, mention or cite as grounds for the higher sentencing the presence
of the defendant at the time of the underlying offense or his participation in that offense or
his participation in covering [up] the offense.

In this case, l note that we have evidence, and by Mr, Laster's own admissions, he

willingly and intentionally drove off in a car stolen from a man who had just been shot
before his eyes. The shooter of the man that died and of another man who survived was In
the car driven by [Laster] as they fled the scene at high speeds. The shooter presumably
had the gun with him, and Mr. Laster’s actions were of danger to public safety because
the shooter was clearly armed and dangerous at that time.

*3 The defendant, Mr. Laster. not only did not aid those who were shot. but actively and

consciously assisted the murderer of [J.D.] to flee the scene and avoid capture. He
assisted in the destruction of evidence after the crime by facilitating the burning of the car.
He also assisted in the fleeing of the other codefendant from the scene. All of those
actions posed a great risk to public safety.

l think it's clear that, although Mr. Laster professes his

friendship and affinity for the
victims and for [J.D. in particular]—-and l have no reason to doubt that he did have feelings
for him—he essentially drove away from the scene and left two men in the street to die.
and one of them unfortunately did.

Laster argues that his conduct, ”while serious, did not justify ranking his offense at a severity
level of nine." He argues that he ”did not anticipate [the] incident.” that "[J.D.] was his friend."
and that “he did not clean the crime scene, provide false information to the police or later
interfere with the investigation.” But as the district court soundly reasoned, Laster “willingly
and intentionally drove off in a car stolen from a man who had just been shot before his
eyes” and helped the shooter flee the scene. Laster "assisted in the destruction of evidence
after the crime by facilitating the burning of the car" by switching vehicles, driving W.W. and
N.J. to the gas station, and then driving them back to J.D.’s vehicle with a gas can. And as
the district court‘s statements suggest, it considered Lester's conduct especially egregious
because there were two victims. Because Lester’s underlying conduct was particularly
grave. the district court appropriately relied on it when assigning a severity level of nine.

Severity Level Assigned to Ranked Offenses with Similar Elements

The district court noted that “[t]here are no closely analogous offenses on a sentencing
guidelines severity table to compare this offense to." The district court reasoned:

I would note that aiding an offender under subdivision 1 of this same statute (Minn. Stat. §
609.495 (2016)] has a severity level of only 1; but, as noted in the case law and is obvious
from the [Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission] notes, the Sentencing
Guidelines Commission considers this offense much more serious than one that would be
sentenced under subdivision 1 of the same statute.

|think that tampering with a witness may be considered comparable as that offense
Involves taking action to obstruct an investigation or conceal evidence of a crime. That is,
under our guidelines, a severity level 9, if it’s aggravated, if it's accompanied by violence
or the threat of violence. Similarly, here, [Laster] took actions to assist the shooter of two
victims to flee the scene of the crime and took actions to destroy evidence that may be
found or discovered in [J.D.’s] car by assisting others in setting that car on fire.

Laster argues that the district court erred by comparing the offense in this case, aiding an
offender—accomplice after the fact, to aggravated tampering with a witness because “[t]
ampering with a witness is a much more serious offense than what occurred here.” Laster
further argues that, unlike witness tampering, the underlying offense here did not involve the
use of “coercion, force or threats of injury to intentionally prevent a witness from testifying”
and that there was "no indication that [he] acted to intentionally obstruct an investigation or
conceal evidence."

*4 According to Kenard, the relevant comparison is between the elements of the unranked
offense and the elements of a ranked offense. See 606 N.W.2d at 443—44 (referring to
element-based similarity between ranked and unranked offenses); see also Minn. Sent.
Guidelines 2.A.4.b (Supp. 2017) (stating that the court may consider "the severity level

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/Iad746bf07dcc1 lea99df8a6889484d86/View/FullTe... 7/12/2021

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State V. Laster Cases Minnesota] Westlaw
l |
Page 4 ofState
7 of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

assigned to any ranked offense with elements that are similar to the elements of the
unranked offense”).

A person is guilty of aiding an offender—accomplice after the fact if the person "intentionally
aids another person whom the actor knows or has reason to know has committed a criminal
act, by destroying or concealing evidence of that crime, providing false or misleading
information about that crime, receiving the proceeds of that crime. or otherwise obstructing
the investigation or prosecution" Minn. Stat. § 609.495. subd. 3. A person is guilty of
aggravated first—degree witness tampering if the person threatens great bodily harm or death
to another in the course of intentionally: (1) preventing, dissuading, or attempting to prevent
or dissuade a potential witness from attending or testifying at any criminal trial or
proceeding; (2) coercing or attempting to coerce a potential witness to testify falsely; (3)
retaliating against a person who was a witness at a criminal trial or proceeding; (4)
preventing. dissuading, or attempting to prevent or dissuade a person from providing
information to law enforcement regarding a crime; (5) coercing or attempting to coerce a
person to provide false information to law enforcement regarding a crime; or (6) retaliating
against a person who has provided information to law enforcement regarding a crime. Minn,
Stat. § 609.498, subd. 113(3) (2016). The elements of first-degree tampering with a witness
and aiding an offender—accomplice after the fact are not sufficiently similar for the purpose
of assigning a severity ranking.

Relying on Kenard, Lester argues that aiding an offender under Minn. Stat. § 609.495, subd.
1(a). a severity-leveI—one offense, is the most similar ranked offense. 606 N.W.2d at 443~44.
Kenard was convicted of aiding an offender—accomplice after the fact based on her efforts
to conceal a murder. Id. at 441. She cleaned the crime scene. held doors open so the
murderer could dispose of the body. and initially provided false information to the police. Id.
at 443. The district court assigned a severity level of seven when sentencing Kenard. Id. at
441. On appeal. the supreme court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in
assigning a severity level of seven in part because the district court "did not indicate on the
record what factors, if any, it considered when it assigned offense severity level [seven] to
Kenard’s offense" and it was therefore “almost impossible for a reviewing court to evaluate
the [district] court's exercise of discretion." Id. at 442-43.

The supreme court went on to analyze the appropriate severity level for Kenard's offense. Id.
at 443-44. The supreme court determined that "[tJhe ranked offense most similar to Kenard’s
offense [was] alding an offender under Minn. Stat. § 609.495, subd. 1(a)," which was ranked
at severity level one under the guidelines. Id. The supreme court noted that the primary
differences between aiding an offender under Minn. Stat. § 609.495, subd. 1(a). and
offender—accomplice after the fact under Minn. Stat. § 609.495. subd. 3. are "that
subdivision 3’s application is limited to certain enumerated offenses while subdivision 1 ls
not so limited; and that subdivision 3 provides that those convicted thereunder may be
sentenced to up to one-half of the statutory maximum of the aided offense.” Id. at 444. The
supreme court reasoned that based on those differences. the legislature obviously
“considers convictions under subdivision 3 more serious than those under subdivision 1.“ Id.

*5 ln analyzing the appropriate severity level for Kenard’s offense, the supreme court
considered the severity rankings assigned in six other cases of aiding an
offender—accomplice after the fact. Id. In four of the cases, the underlying offense was an
attempted or completed murder and the district court assigned a severity level of eight. Id. at
444-45. ln the other two cases, the underlying offense was a robbery and the district court
assigned a severity level of seven. Id. at 445. Because at the time of Kenard the highest
severity level was ten, and not eleven as it is now, severity levels of seven and eight were
similar to what would now be severity levels eight and nine. Compare Minn. Sent. Guidelines
IV (Supp. 1997) (providing presumptive sentences of 48 and 86 months of imprisonment,
respectively, for severity levels seven and eight when a person has a criminal-history score
of zero), with Minn. Sent. Guidelines 4.A (Supp. 2017) (providing presumptive sentences of
48 and 86 months of imprisonment, respectively, for severity levels eight and nine when a
person has a criminal-history score of zero).

The supreme court explained that in each of the six cases, "the offender was either present
at the time of the underlying offense, participated to some degree in the underlying offense,
or readily participated in covering up the underlying offense." Kenard, 606 N.W.2d at 445.
The supreme court contrasted those circumstances with Kenard's offense, noting that she
was “neither present at the time of, nor participated in, [the] murder" and "did not choose to
become involved in concealing [the] murder, rather she walked into her own home with two
young children to find blood on the walls and floor and took steps to hide the murder from

https :// 1 .next.west1aw.com/Document/Iad746bf07dcc1 1ea99df8a6889484d86/Vicw/FullTe. .. 7/12/2021

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State V. Laster Cases Minnesota] Westlaw
| I Page 5 ofState
7 of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

her 4-year old son.” Id. The supreme court concluded, “\Mth these cases in mind, we
remand to the [district] coun for a determination of the severity level of Kenard's offense.
consistent with this opinion.” Id.

Laster argues that “[iln contrast to the cases examined in Kenard, while [he] was present
when the victims were shot, he did not participate in the offense or readily participate in
covering up the offenses.“ The record refutes that argument. Again. Laster admitted that he
drove the murderer from the crime scene—using me victim’s car—and then facilitated the
destruction of the victim's car. Laster's conduct is akin to the conduct involved in the four
attempted or completed murder cases discussed in Kenard and therefore warrants a similar
ranking.

Conduct and Severity Level Assigned to Other Offenders for Same Unranked Offense
The district court explained that it had "reviewed the records maintained by the Minnesota
Sentencing Guidelines Commission for other persons that have been sentenced for the
offense of aiding an offender, accomplice after the fact in the years between 2015 and
2017.” The district court noted that "three of those offenders who were sentenced for that
crime were assigned a severity level 7 by the sentencing court. six have been assigned a
severity level 9; and nine offenders were assigned a severlty level 8."

Laster argues that a severity level of nine was "only assigned in a minority of the cases" that
the district court considered. Laster further argues that his conduct was significantly less
serious than the conduct of other defendants who have been convicted of aiding an
offender—accomplice after the fact. Again. he relies on Kenard, 606 N.W.2d at 445, In
support of that arguments As explained above, that reliance is unavailing because a higher
ranking Is justified when his conduct is compared to Kenard’s.

Moreover. the state points out that this court recently affirmed the district court’s assignment
of a severlty level of nlne in a case involving very similar conduct. In that case, Cooper v.
State. the defendant went into a residence to retrieve personal belongings No. A17-0994,
2018 WL 1787689, at *1 (Minn. App. Apr. 16, 2018), review denied (Minn. June 27, 2018).
Another person entered the residence and shot a third person. Id. The defendant left the
residence. aware that the third person had been shot. Id. As the defendant pulled away, the
shooter Jumped into the defendant’s vehicle. Id. Even though the defendant believed he was
the shooter and that he likely had the gun in his possession, the defendant drove the shooter
to his home. Id. The defendant pleaded guilty to aiding an offender—accomplice after the
fact and the district court assigned a severity level of nine. Id. This court affirmed. reasoning
that the district court correctly described the defendant’s conduct as extremely serious and
that the offense was similar to the "aiding-in-a-murder offenses" described in Kenard. Id. at

*2-3. We reach the same conclusion here?

*6 ln sum. unlike the circumstances in Kenard, the district court here made a record showing
that Itconsidered the relevant permissive factors and provided sufficient reasons for its
assignment of severity level nine to Lester’s offense of aiding an offender—accomplice after
the fact. That severity level corresponds with assignments for similar conduct in comparable
cases, and it is appropriate given the gravity of Lester's conduct. The district court did not
abuse its discretion by assigning a severity level of nine.

ll.
Laster contends that the “district court abused its discretion by denying [his] pre-sentencing
motlon to withdraw his guilty plea.”

"A defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea after entering it.” Slate v.
Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90, 93 (Minn. 2010). However, withdrawal is permitted in two
circumstances. Id. First, "[a]t any time the court must allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty
plea upon a timely motion and proof to the satisfaction of the court that withdrawal is
necessary to correct a manifest injustice.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 15.05, subd. 1. Second, "[i]n its
discretion the court may allow the defendant to withdraw a plea at any time before sentence
if it is fair and just to do so." ld., subd. 2. Although the district court considered Laster’s plea-
withdrawal motion under both the manifest-injustice and fair~and—just standards. his
arguments on appeal are limited to the falr—and-just standard.

Although the fair-and-just standard is “less demanding than the manifest injustice standard.
it does not allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea for simply any reason." State v. Theis.

742 N.W.2d 643, 646 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).

https ://1 .next.westlaw.com/Document/Iad746bf07dcc1 lea99df8ae8 89484d86/VieW/FullTe. .. 7/12/2021

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State v. Laster Cases Minnesota Westlaw
I | I Page 6 ofState
7 of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

The fair and just standard requires district courts to give due consideration to
two factors: (1) the reasons a defendant advances to support withdrawal and
(2) prejudice granting the motion would cause the State given reliance on the
plea. A defendant bears the burden of advancing reasons to support
withdrawal. The State bears the burden of showing prejudice caused by
withdrawal.

Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d at 97 (citations and quotation omitted). Appellate courts review a
district court’s decision to deny a plea-withdrawal motion under the fair-and-just standard for
abuse of discretion. “reversing only in the rare case.” Id. (quotation omitted). "Guilty pleas
facilitate the efficient administration of justice. and more than a change of heart is needed to
withdraw a guilty plea." State v. Lopez. 794 N.W,2d 379, 382 (Minn. App. 2011).

Laster argues that the “severity level nine and 158-month cap agreed to in the plea
agreement were excessive and inconsistent with the interests of justice in this case"
because N.J. received a “stayed 23—month sentence.” Laster complains that although he
“was not convicted of any of the actual offenses, but merely of aiding an offender after the
fact," his “sentence ls notably more severe than the sentence [N.J.] recelved, despite [N.J.’s]
key role in the arson and destruction of the decedent's vehicle." Laster argues that it would
have been fair and just to allow hlm to withdraw his plea based on N.J.’s sentence.

The facts of this case are similar to those in State v. Townsend. 872 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. App.
2015). Townsend agreed to plead guilty to an amended offense of aiding an offender after
the fact for a murder committed by a codefendant and to testify against that codefendant. Id.
at 761. Before Townsend was sentenced, he testified at the codefendant’s trial, and the jury
found the codefendant not guilty. Id. Townsend moved to withdraw his guilty plea under the
manifest-injustice and falr-and-just standards based on the codefendant's acquittal. Id. at
761-62. The district court denied Townsend’s plea-withdrawal motion. Id. at 761.

*7 On appeal, Townsend‘s “sole reason for asking to withdraw his plea" under the fair-and-

Just standard was that he “faceldl punishment for an after~the~fact role in a murder that a jury
determined could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 764. This court rejected
that argument for two reasons. Id. First. we explained that the offense of aiding an
offender-accomplice after the fact did not require that the other person actually be
convicted of the crime. Id. Second, we reasoned that “Townsend had the opportunity to
present his case to a jury but chose to waive his trial rights to take advantage of a favorable
plea negotiation." Id. We determined that "[tjhe district court did not abuse its discretion by
concluding that Townsend’s realization that he made a bad bargain did not provide him with
a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea.” Id.

Laster similarly "had the opportunity to present his case to a jury but chose to waive his trial
rights to take advantage of a favorable plea negotlafion." See id. The fact that he now
believes he made a bad bargain given the sentence N.J. received after trial does not
establish a fair-and~just reason to withdraw his guilty plea. See id.; see also Lopez. 794
N.W.2d at 382 (stating that "more than a change of heart is needed to withdraw a guilty
plea").

iii.
In prose supplemental briefs. Laster claims (1) that the sentence he received was
“excessive and unjust” given his conduct and (2) that the district courtjudge who sentenced
hlm was biased because that judge “had previously signed warrants that were used in this
case" and “was the judge presiding over the trial."

Laster’s argument that the sentence he received was excessive and unjust is addressed in
our discussion of the arguments in his principal brief.
As to Lester’s argument that the
sentencing judge was biased, "[p]revious adverse rulings by themselves do not demonstrate
judicial basis." Harmon v. State, 752 N.W.2d 518, 522 (Minn. 2008). Lester's bias argument
therefore does not provide a basis for relief.

Affirmed.

All Citations

Not Reported in N.W. Rptr., 2020 WL 1846510

i 3

i
Footnotes 5

https ://1 .next.westlaw.com/Document/Iad746bf07dcc1 lea99df8ae8 89484d86/View/FullTe. .. 7/ 1 2/2021

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State V. Laster Cases Minnesota Westlaw
I | | Page 7 ofState
7 of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

1 We address the issues in the order that they were presented to this court.

2 Cooper is an unpublished case, and unpublished cases are not precedential;

but they may be persuasive. Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018); Dynamic
Air, Inc. v. Bloch, 502 N.W.2d 796. 800-01 (Minn. App. 1993). Reliance on an
unpublished opinion is appropriate here because the goal of the sentencing
guidelines is to assure "uniformity, proportionality. rationality. and predictability
in sentencing.” See Minn. Stat. § 244.09, subd. 5 (2016); see also State v,

Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65, 68 (Minn. 2002) ("In light of a court‘s discretion in
sentencing, the sentencing guidelines were created to assure uniformity,
proportionality, rationality. and predictability in sentencing”). An examination of
sentences imposed for unranked offenses in unpublished cases may be
necessary to achieve that goal.

End of © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original US. Government Works.

Document

Westlaw.©2021 Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement Accessibility Supplier Terms Contact Us 5

Improve Westlaw
; ; _'
1<800~REF~ATTY<®0 THOMSON

https://1 .next.westlaw.com/Document/Iad746bf07dcc1 1 ea99df8216889484d86/V iew/FullTe. .. 7/12/2021

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
Cooper v. State Cases Minnesota Westlaw
I | i Page 1 ofState
4 of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

We've updated our Privacy Statement. Before you continue, please read our new Privacy Statement and familiarize yourself with the terms.

WE§TLAW {:LQSSiC

SELECTED TOPICS

2018 WL 1787689 Mental Health

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. Crimes
Defendants Challenging Constitutionality of
NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED AS UNPUBLISHED AND MAY NOT BE CITED Classification Procedure of Sex Offender
Cooper v. State Registration Act
'

Court of Appeals of Minnesota. Aprfig?&¥8r Afigl 9pm? tnDNW MwlrNN2§lg ®E$78$§89A8R§9$§3x 4 pages)
Secondary Sources
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. §
State statutes or ordinances requiring
480A.08, subd. 3 (2016). persons previously convicted of crime
Court of Appealsof Minnesota. to register with authorities

36 A.L.R.5th 161 (Originally published in

Demiteras A1 COOPER, petitioner, Appellant, 1996)
...lncreasing public concern about crime has
v. caused more and more jurisdictions lo pass
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent criminal registration legislation. Designed to
protect communities and facilitate law
enforcement by making persons
A17‘0994
Filed April 16, 2018 Representing Sex Offenders and the
“Chemical Castration Defense"

Hennepin County District Court, File Nos. 27-CR-14—5026, 27—CR—14—5025 34 Am. Jun Trials 1 (Originally published In
1987)
...Thls article discusses matters relevant to
Attorneys and Law Firms the criminal defense of sex offenders, in
which the prosecution has strong but not
Bradford Colbert, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant) overwhelming evidence of guilt. Experienced
trial lawyers are aware of the

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Validity, construction, and application
of state statutes authorizing
Michael O. F reernan. Hennepin County Attorney. Kelly O'Neill Moller, Assistant County community notification of release of
convicted sex offender
Attorney, Grant Gunderson (certified student attorney), Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
respondent) 78 A.L.R.5th 459 (Originally published in
2000)
Consldered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Ross. Judge. ...Increasing public concern relating to the
release of convicted sex offenders has led to
the enactment of statutes requiring
UNPUBLISHED OPINION community notification. Various Jurisdictions
have enacted such statutes to n...
WORKE. Judge
See More Secondary Sources
*1 Appellant argues that the postconvtction court abused its discretion by determining that Briefs
the district court appropriately assigned a severity level nine to appellant's offense of aiding
BRIEF OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
an offender. We affirm. SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA AS AMICUS CURIAE IN
FACTS SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
On February 20, 2014. appellant Demiteras Al Cooper went to a residence to retrieve 2002 WL 1836721
Glenn G. Godfrey. Bruce M. Boteiho v. John
personal belongings. Cooper went into the kitchen and got into a confrontation with Q.F.
Doe l; Public Defender Service for Distric of
Dashaunta Dmar Gomez entered the residence and shot J.H. Cooper left the residence Columbia
knowing that J.H. had been shot. As Cooper pulled away, Gomez jumped Into Cooper's Supreme Court of the United States
Aug. 05. 2002
vehicle. Cooper believed that Gomez shot J.H. and had reason to know that Gomez had the
...FN* Counsel of Record FNI. Ail parties
gun in his possession. Cooper drove Gomez to Gomez's residence. Cooper knew that by have consented in writing to this briefs
submission. PDS attorneys are the sole
driving Gomez from the scene, he intentionally assisted Gomez in avoiding arrest. He also authors. No entity external to PDS
had reason to know that because Gomez had the gun, he was removing evidence from the contributed money toward the brief. The
scene and assisting Gomez in avoiding prosecution. Cooper did not report the crime to Public...

police. BRIEF FOR PETlTlONERS

2002 WL 1275055
Cooper was indicted on charges of first- and second~degree murder for acting alone or Glenn G. Godfrey, Bruce M. Boteiho v. John
intentionally aiding in the death of J.H. The indictment was amended to include the unranked Doe I. Jane Doe, John Doe i|
offense of aiding an offender after the fact, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.495, subd. 3 Supreme Court of the United States
June 03, 2002
(2012).' ...FN‘ Counsel of Record The opinion of the
Ninth Circuit, as amended, ls reported at 259
On December 4, 2014, Cooper pleaded guilty to aiding an offender after the fact. Cooper‘s F.3d 979 and reprinted in the appendix to the
petition for certiorari ("Pet. App") at 1a. The
plea agreement included a severity-Ievel—nine ranking for the offense and a 134—month original opinion is...
prison sentence. The state submitted a sentencing memorandum with justification for the
Brief of the State of California Ex Rel.
level-nine ranking. Cooper did not object to the state's memorandum. The district court Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, And the

https ://1 .next.westlaw.com/Document/I62148f8041941 1689d46ed79fb79223 7/VieW/FullT. .. 7/12/2021

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
Cooper V. State Cases Minnesotal Westlaw
I | Page 2 ofState
4 of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

sentenced Cooper to 134 months in prison. The district court incorporated the state's State of Colorado Ex Rel. Ken Salazar,
Attorney General, And the 41 States
memorandum regarding the justification for the level-nine ranking as part of its sentencing and Territories of Alabama, Arizona,
order. Connecticut, Delaware. The District of
Columbia‘ As Amici Curiae in Support
of Petitioner, The State of Alaska
In January 2017, Cooper filed a petition for postconviction relief, requesting that a "correct" Florida, Georgia, Hawaii. lllinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana.
severity level be assigned to the offense. The district court denied Cooper's petition,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi,
concluding that the district court appropriately exercised its discretion by adopting the state's Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Mexico, New
sentencing memorandum regarding justification for the severity-level—nine ranking. This
Jersey, New York
appeal followed.
2002 WL 1308561
Glenn Gt Godfrey, Bruce M. Botelho v. John
DECISION Doe l, Jane Doe, John Doe Ii: State of
Cooper argues that he should be resentenced using a lower severity level. The district court California ex rel, Bill Lockyer, Attorney
General, State of Colorado ex rel, Ken
denied Cooper's challenge to the severity-level assignment in a petition for postconvictlon Salazar, Attorney General
relief. This court reviews a denial of postconvlction relief for an abuse of discretion. State v. Supreme Court of the United Slates
May so, 2002
Hokanson, 821 N.W.2d 340, 357 (Minn. 2012). ln doing so, this court reviews the
.,.FN[* Additional States, Territories and
postconvlction court‘s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Counsel Listed on inside Cover] The Amici
v. State, 797 N.W.2d 712. 718 (Minn. 2011). This court reviews a district court's States tile this brief pursuant to Rule 37 ol the
Bonga
Rules of the Supreme Court of the United
severity-level determination for an abuse of discretion. State v. Berlsch, 707 N.W.2d 660. States. This brief is respec...
666 (Minn. 2006).
See More Briefs
*2 Here, Cooper pleaded guilty to aiding an offender after the fact, an unranked offense. Trial Court Documents
When a dlstrlct court sentences an unranked offense, the court "must assign an appropriate
0.8. v. Gladish
severity level for the offense and specify on the record why that particular level was
2007 WL 6467626
assigned." Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.A.4 (2012). ln doing so, the district court may consider
UNlTED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Brian
the following factors: (1) “the gravity of the specific conduct underlying the unranked GLADISH.
United States District Court. N.D. lndlana.
offense;” (2) "the severity tevel assigned to any ranked offense with elements that are similar
July 18, 2007
to the elements of the unranked offense;" (3) "the conduct of and severity level assigned to
...THE DEFENDANT: pleaded guilty lo count
other offenders for the same unranked offense;" and (4) "the severity level assigned to other (s) pleaded nolo contenders lo count(s)
offenders engaged ln similar conduct.” Id.; Stale v. Kenard, 606 N.W.2d 440, 443 (Minn. which was accepted by the court. X was
found guilty on count(s) 1 and 2 after a plea
2000). No single factor is controlling and the list of factors is not exhaustive. Kenard, 606 of not guilty. The defendant ls adlu...
N.W.2d at 443.
U.s. v. Webster
The district court adopted the state's sentencing memorandum. which analyzed the factors 2014 WL 8662499
considered in assigning a severity level to an unranked offense. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Ronald
WEBSTER, Defendant.
United States District Court, N.D. Alabama,
As to the first factor—“the gravity of the specific conduct underlying the unranked Apr. 02, 2014
offense"-the district court found that Cooper's conduct was “extremely serious” because ...The defendant. RONALD WEBSTER, was
represented by David S. Luker. On motion of
Cooper was present at the time of the shooting and he drove Gomez away from the scene. the United States, the court has dismissed
The district court‘s findings are supported by the record. counts 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 916,17,16,19,
and 20. The defendant pleaded gu...

Gomez shot J.H. in the residence while Cooper was there. Cooper drove Gomez away from
U.S. v. Pratt
the scene. believing that Gomez shot J.H. Cooper admitted that he should have known that
2017 Wt. 11572159
Gomez left with the gun; thus, Cooper assisted in removing evidence from the scene and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Daphne
knew that doing so would assist Gomez in avoiding prosecution. And Cooper did not report PRATT.
United States District Court, D. South
the crime to police. These facts support the district court's determination that Cooper's
Carolina.
conduct was “extremely serious." July 26, 2017
pleaded guilty to count 1 of the Second
As to the second factor—“the severity levelassigned to any ranked offense with elements Superseding indictment on November 30,
2016. pleaded noio conlendere to counl(s)
that are similar to the elements of the unranked offense"—the district court. citing Kenard,
__

which was accepted by the court. was found

found that the offense most similar to the offense for which Cooper was convicted was guilty on count(s) after a pie...
__

aiding an offender, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.495. subd. 1(a) (2012). Noting that See More Trial Court Documents
section 609.495, subdivision 1(a), dealt with “considerably less serious undertying crimes,"
the district court relied on characteristics of an offender's conduct identified in Kenard that
would justify a higher severity level, including the offender‘s presence at, participation in. and
covering up of the underlying offense. The district court found that Cooper was present
during and assisted in covering up the shooting. As described above, this finding is
supported by the record.

As to the third factor—"the conduct of and severity level assigned to other offenders for the
same unranked offense"——the district court listed several cases cited in Kenard in which
offenders were convicted of violating section 609.495, subdivision 3 and received severity-
level rankings of seven and eight? The district court noted that the severity levels in these
comparable cases predated a modification to the sentencing guidelines that led to the
increase of severity levels, making an offense previously ranked at seven now ranked at
eight. See Taylor v. Slate, 670 N.W.2d 584, 587 n.3 (Minn. 2003). Vlfith the increase of the
severity levels, a level seven or eight ranking would now be an eight or nine ranking.

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I62148f8041941 1689d46ed79fb792237/VieW/FullT... 7/12/2021

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
Cooper v. State Cases Minnesota] Westlaw
I I Page 3 ofState
4 of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

*3 We are also persuaded that Kenard supports a level-nine ranking. There are six cases

cited in Kenard, divided into two groups based on the predicate offenses—robbery and
murder. 606 N.W.2d at 444—45. The aiding-in—a—robbery offenses were assigned severity
level seven. Id. at 445. The aiding»in—a-murder offenses were assigned severity level eight.
Id. at 444—45. One of the murder cases is Brayboy. Id. at 444; see State v. Patterson, 587
N.W. 2d 45, 47—48 (Minn. 1998) (discussing Brayboy's conduct). Brayboy admitted to being
present during the murders and helping the perpetrator flee the scene. Kenard. 606 N.W.2d
at 444. Brayboy's offense was assigned a severity level eight. Id. Similarly, Cooper was
present at the scene and helped Gomez flee. Cooper's offense was assigned severity level
nine. Under the current sentencing scheme Brayboy's offense would be assigned a severity
level nine as well.

Finally, as to the fourth factor—"the severity level assigned to other offenders engaged in
similar conduct"—~the district court found that Cooper's conduct was analogous to the
conduct of the offender in State v. Solorzano—O’Brien, who received a severity level ten
No. A10—1514, 2011 WL 1237554, at *1 (Minn. App. Apr. 5, 2011), review denied
[ranking
(Mlnn. June 28, 2011). In that case. the offender, a high—ranking gang member, drove four
codefendants to threaten or harm an alleged member of a rival gang. State v. Patina, 3 No.
ADS—1005, 2009 WL 2225440, at *1 (Minn. App. July 23, 2009), review denied (Minn. Oct.
20, 2009). The vlctlm was lured outside and one of the codefendants shot and killed him. Id.
The appellant pleaded guilty to aiding an offender after the fact for the benefit of a gang. Id.

Thls court affirmed the severity-level ranking because the appellant was the oldest of the
codefendants and exercised influence on the others, the appellant was in the car when the
codefendants lured the victim outside, the appellant instructed the others to stay silent and

[misled the police, and the victim's family feared gang retaliation. So/orzano—O’Brien, 2011
WL 1237554. at *1—2. Similarly, Gomez was Cooper‘s stepson; thus. there was a level of

influence. Gomez was a gang member. Cooper was present during the shooting. And
Cooper assisted Gomez in avoiding arrest and prosecution.

ln Slate v. Sklplntheday, this court affirmed the district court's decision to assign a severity
level eight for the crime of accomplice after the fact to firstdegree murder. 704 N.W.2d 177,
183 (Minn. App. 2005), aff’d. 717 N.W.2d 423 (Minn. 2006). in that case. the appellant went
with three lndlvlduals to a party where rival gang members would be present. Id. at 179. An
argument arose between the individuals who arrived with the appellant and other party
attendees. resulting In three individuals being shot and one being killed. Id. The appellant
was present during the shootings but did not participate in them. Id. The appellant fled in a
car with the shooters, advising the driver: "You didn't see anything." Id. The police stopped
the vehicle and the appellant removed the ammunition from the gun and hid it and the gun In
separate locations. Id. He also denied involvement in the shootings and misidentified an
lndivldual In the vehicle to protect him from an arrest warrant. Id.

Similarly, Cooper was present during the shooting and he fled in a vehicle with Gomez.
Although Cooper did not personally hide the weapon, he admitted that he should have
known that Gomez was in possession of the weapon when they fled; by driving Gomez from
the scene, he was removing evidence and assisting Gomez in avoiding prosecution.

In sum, the district court considered the Kenard factors and provided sufficient reasons for
its severity-level assignment. Cooper's offense was assigned a severity level nine, a ranking
that corresponds with assignments for similar conduct in comparable cases. See State v.
Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65, 68 (Minn. 2002) (stating that the sentencing guidelines
promote “uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing“). The district
court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cooper's petition for postconvlcticn relief.

*4 Affirmed.

All Citations

Not Reported in N.W. Rpm, 2018 WL 1787689

. ,, ,,
,
a

Footnotes
i.
1 Gomez was charged with first- and second-degree murder and felon in
possession of a firearm. State v. Gomez, No. A15—0128, 2016 WL 363403, at
*1 (Minn. App. Feb. 1, 2016), review denied (Minn. Mar. 29, 2016). Ajury

found Gomez guilty of second-degree murder and felon in possession of a

firearm. Id. The district court sentenced Gomez to 60 months in prison for

https ://1 .next.westlaw.c0m/Documcnt/I62148f8041941 1e89d46ed79fb792237/View/FullT... 7/12/2021

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
Cooper V. State Cases Minnesota Westlaw
] I I Page 4 of 4 of Minnesota
State
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm and to 346 months in

prison for second-degree murder. Id.

Since Kenard, this court has released several unpublished opinions affirming
severity»level assignments of eight and nine for the offense of aiding an
offender, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.495, subd. 3, including: State v.
Wilson. No. A15—1001, 2016 WL 1396803, at *1 (Minn. App. Apr. 11, 2016)
(present in vehicle during drive-by shooting that injured two women and
concealed firearm, assigned severity level eight), review denied (Minn. June
29, 2016); State v. Oldenburg, No. A09—1273, 2010 WL 2161028, at *1 —2
(Minn. App. June 1, 2010) (aware of boyfriend‘s plot to murder, assisted in
disposing of body, lied to police, and concealed/destroyed evidence, assigned
severity level nine); In re Welfare of T.J.W., No. AO7—1014, 2008 WL 224013,
at *3, *11 (Minn. App. Jan. 29, 2008) (presentduring murder, participated in
attack preceding murder, covered up murder, and misled investigators,
assigned severity level eight), review denied (Minn. Mar. 26. 2008); In re
Weifare of OH, No. C0—02——900, 2003 WL 457233, at *3 (Minn. App. Feb. 25,
2003) (chased victim with intent to cause harm, present during murder, and
concealed gun, assigned severity level eight). Although not precedentiai, these
cases are persuasive.

The appellant used different names.

End of © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Document

Westtaw.©2021 Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement Supplier Terms Contact Us '

i E
Accessibility E :
1-800-REF-ATTYQ'E'10 Improve Westlaw woman REUTERS

https://1 .next.westlaw.com/Document/I62148f8041941 1e89d46ed79fb792237/View/FullT... 7/12/2021

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

m1 MINNesorA
SENTENCING GUIDELINES COMMISSION

2018 Unranked Offenses

Frequency and Severity ‘of Unranked Offenses
Sentenced 1981—2018

Published May 29, 2020

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

m‘fi MINNeSOTA
SENTENCING GUIDELINES COMMISSION

658 Cedar Street, Suite G-58

Saint Paul, MN 55155
Voice: (651)296-0144
—
Website: http://mn.gov/sentencing-guidelines
Email: [email protected]’
Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may contact us via their preferred Telecommunications Relay Service.

COMMISSION MEMBERS
Kelly Lyn Mitchell, Chair and Public Member
Christopher Dietze n, Associate Supreme CourtJustice (Retired), Designee ofthe Chief J ustice of the Minnesota
Supreme Court
Valerie Estrada, Corrections Unit Supervisor, Hennepin County Community Corrections & Rehabilitation
Abby Honold, Public Member
Tonja Honsey, Public Member
Michelle A. Larkin, Minnesota Court of Appeals Judge
Kevin Mark, FirstJudicial District CourtJudge
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender
Salim Omari, Saint Paul Police Sergeant
Peter Orput, Washington County Attorney
Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Corrections

COMMISSION STAFF
NathanielJ. Reitz, Executive Director
Nicole Jas person, Research Analyst
Kathleen Madland, Research Analyst Intermediate
Linda McBrayer, Management Analyst 4
Jill Payne, Senior Research Analysis Specialist
Anne Wall, Senior Research Analysis Specialist

ABOUT THIS REPORT

This data report has been prepared by the research staff of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission in
fulfillment of the Commission’s statutory role as a clearinghouse and information center for information on
sentencing practices. This is not a policy document. Nothing in this report should be construed as a statement of
existing policy or recommendation of future policy on behalf of the Commission itself, or as an authoritative
interpretation of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, Minnesota statutes, or case law.
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Table of Contents
lntrod uction

General Sentencing Practices for Un ranked Offenses

Sentencing Practices forAiding anOffend er, Accomplice After the Fact

Case Volume

Case-Level Information

Appendicg 22

Appendix 1. How the Guidelines Work 22

Appendix 2. Standard Sentencing Guidelines Grid, Effective August L 2018 24

Appendix 3. Sex Offender Grid, Effective August 1, 2018 25

Appendix 4. Drug Offender Grid, Effective Augmt J, 2018 26

Table 1. Frequency and Severity of Unra nked Offenses, Sentenced 2013—2018 by Year, and Sentenced 1981—
2018 in Total

Table 2. Aiding an Offender, Accomplice after the Fact, 2015—2018

Table 3. Aiding an Offender, Accomplice after the Fact, 2001—2014 11

Table 4. Felony Criminal Acts Listed in Minn. Stat. § 609.11, Subd. 9 20

2018 Unranked Oflenses Report iii

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Introduction
The Sentencing Guidelines Commission assigns severity-level ra nkings to felony offenses to indicate offense
seriousness. In determining how, or whether, offenses should be assigned a severity level, the Commission will
consider how district courts have generally sentenced the offenses, along with the maximum penalty
established by the Legislature, rankings for similar crimes, and other relevant information. The Commission has
intentionally left a number of felony offenses unra nked.

When crimes are unranked, it may be because they are so seldom charged that no sentencing patterns are
discernible, because they are new crimes that are not easily compa rable to existing offenses, or beca usethe
offense encompasses such a wide range of behavior that it is best to allow the sentencing court discretion in
determining the severity level.

When an offense is unranked, the court must assign an appropriate severity level for the offense and specify on
the record why that particular level was assigned. This ranking process is described in greater detail in Appendix
1, ”Unranked Offenses," on page 22.

The following section describes the sentencing practices for unra nked offenses in general, detailing the
frequency of each unranked offense and the severitylevel(s) assigned to it by sentencing courts. Due to the
offense’s unique nature, the sentencing practices for Aiding an Offender, Accomplice After the Fact—one of the
most commonly occurring unra nked offenses—are detailed in a sepa rate section that begins on page 8.

General Sentencing Practices for Unranked Offenses

In 85cases in 2018, an unra nked offense was the most serious offense sentenced. This number represents 0.5
percent of all felony cases sentenced that yea r. 1Two unra nked offenses accounted for 61 percent of that
volume: Counterfeiting Currency (Minn. Stat. § 609.632) (32 cases); andAiding an Offender, Accomplice after
the Fact (Minn. Stat. § 609.495, subd. 3) (20 cases).

The data in Table 1 represent a summaryof unra nked offenses sentenced between 1981 and 2018. lfthe
severity level of an offense is listed as ”N/A," then no case has ever been sentenced under the Guidelines in
which that offense was the most serious offense sentenced. Currently ranked, but formerly unranked, offenses
are not reported here. 2 Because 421 of the 1,625 unra nked offenses sentenced between 1981 and 2018 are no
longer unranked, a total of 1,204 cases are shown in Table 1.

1
Minnesota courts sentenced 18,284felony offenders in 2018.
1
Effective August 1, 2006,third-degree criminal sexual conduct (Minn. Stat. § 609.344 subd.1(a)),fourth—degree criminal
sexual conduct(Minn. Stat. § 609.345,subd.1(a)), use of minors in a sexual performance (Minn. Stat. § 617.246), and
possession or dissemination of child pornography(Minn. Stat. § 617.247) are no longer unranked offenses. These offenses
are now ranked on the Sex Offender Grid. information onthe ranking ofthese offenses committed priorto August 1, 2006,
can be obtained by submittinga data requestto the MSGC office.

2018 Unranked Ofienses Report 1

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

To obtain any of the data below for specific years or for additional details not provided in this document, please
contact the Sentencing Guidelines Commission at 651-296-0144 or submit a data request at
https://mn.gov/sentencing-guidelines/contact/data-requests.isp.

Table 1. Frequency and SeverityofUnranked Ofi‘enses, Sentenced2013—2018(by Year) and 1981—2018(in Total)

.‘e’ié.;1.;'

Altering Engrossed Bill, N/A 0

Refusal to Assist, §_._5_3 1 1

Membership Camping Contract Sale, _8__2__fi_i_.1_3, N/A 0

Subdivided Land Fraud, $111; 1 2

Midwest Compact Violation, 1160835 N/A 0

Abortion-Related Offenses, 145.412, 617.20, or 617.22 N/A 0

Forced Execution of Declaration, 1453.105 N/A 0

Corporate Political Contribution Violations, £545 N/A 0

morfl
I

Offenses Related to issuing Receipts, Ill/A" 0

Horse Racing (Prohibited Act), 1 1

1 4
Interstate'Compa ct Violation
$133; 2 4

Sales Tax 3 2
Violations _

297A.39‘I{R‘epedled) .
4 2

1 10
I

2 12
Motor Vehicle Excise Tax
2973.10 3 16

4 1

.1 2

Cigarette Taxand Regulation Violations, 2 10

3 13

Pipeline Safety, subd. 2 N/A 0

Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

wwm‘V ”

evsajmuEVE
Ifxssi ENEQV
»

too-Inn:
1rd"; 2
to,»
-~
’ t
LN ‘1 »

(as

1'12."
.
mu” a. «.I

3o“. ii—.( i
43‘“ :{001 I
.
f-

L i;,5"
d, a
.
;
U 7.
‘
,

v
i
“ J. ‘3
\E’.’ .v‘ T _

J
“I. . ,
\i

\_

-
4
.N/A
3255's.;su'bd 11(3), 2; 235 ~

H
Unlawful Transfers or Sales of Recordings
325E201

fu'

4 1._ 2 _I1
N'I-a
_
Torture or Cruelty to Pet or Companion Animal

HHN‘Jm
343.21, subd. 9(c)(d)(g)(i)

__;'-b_r_lu
’-’:_'3_‘;g!3,£‘€"“,"‘"""'¢3.‘5"7'3‘ "’1 .: .' -

Service Animal Service, 343. 21, subd.

Providing 9(f)'(h)
"
"‘1 '3 $1415; ,. 'i

w 2 1 6
'I
‘5‘
.

1
6.5:;
‘
‘AidingSuicide»
609115
‘.
a
1 1

. II
i

1 ‘1 4

* These rankings representthe severity levels in effect on/afterAugust 1, 2002. On that date, a new Severity Lewl 7 was
inserted in the Sentencing Guidelines Grid, with old severity levels7, 8, 9, and 10 becoming 8, 9, 10, and 11.

2018 Unranked Ofenses Report 3

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Biga my, 609.355

cont’d 2

1 19

17

Incest
"
7* 1 4
3* s
9* 6

F __
3

D 1

0
Treason, N/A,” _

Misprision of Treason, 6_09fi9_ N/A 0

0
Ohstruoting MilitéryForcesiw N/A“
Corrupting Legislator, N/A 0
,.

Esoapewith Violence-”from Misd. or Gross Misd. 1 .1.

609.485, subd. 4(a)_(3_) _
,

Escape from Electronic Home Monitoring 2 2 2

609$ subd. 4(f) (Effective 8/1/2002)
3 1 4 6
_

12 ~ 38

1 2 2 61
'

2_ '6 2
-

11 47
-

Aiding an Offender —
Accomplice After Fact ** 3 2 1 2 ‘2 37
subd. 3
4 1 2 5 55,

.5 1 3 1 1 48

*
These rankings rep resentthe severity levels in effect on/after August 1, 2002. On that date, a newSeverityLevel 7 was
inserted in the Sentencing Guidelines-Grid, with old severity levels7, 8, 9, and 10 becoming 8, 9, 10, and 11.
**
For details and case-level information regardingthis offense. referto the section that begins on page 8.

Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Aiding an Offender Accomplice After Fact

—
-

609.495, subd. 3 10*...

cont’d
11*

E
D8
' ‘
;. » 1
.

3
Concealmg CrImInal Proceeds; EngaglngIn Busmess
609 or 497
6__09. 5
496..
'
6

1'
609 Z971oi- 609 4975 2.
1
“‘
Damageto Property (CriticalService Facilities, Utilities, 2 “-

'
and Pipelines)
3
609.594, subd. 2 (Efiective 7/1/2002) .. '
It‘d
4 .‘

Killing or Harming Public Safety Dog, 609.596, subd. 1

‘
I" ~""'1_'I'
~" ‘v
"';i|‘

saultmg o'r HarmInga'PolIce Horse

'
«609.597 subd; 3(1) 85(2) ‘.
Insurance Fraud (Employment of Runners)
612 subd. 2 (Effective
§____,09.
8/1/2002)
{4.01

25

* These rankings representthe severity levels in effecton/afterAugust 1, 2002. On that date, a new Severity Level 7 was
inserted in the Sentencing Guidelines Grid, with old severity levels7, 8, 9, and 10 becoming 8, 9, 10, and 11.

2018 Unranked Ofl‘enses Report 5

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

, r
:u .1
1
f‘ ‘1 , ‘py ,1 1?.

EB am
‘

c » »‘-
3
-
1:521 13-;
in}:
:1
lo:
”2991‘,"
119‘
18 1
:
'

L432, ~

N 1311431}
Tmgmi Jog
‘ ml;‘ ‘ (05):.;(~
,
1% 1&5
‘tm‘ V1 _
1

:‘ v . .
5115
“7":
n
,1 ,5
xgzb.‘
‘
‘1: ,

3 3 '3 2 6 2 26
Counterfeiting Currency 4 4
609.632
cont’d 5 1 3

8 1

State Lottery Fraud, 609.651, subd. 1, with 4(b‘)vand 1 1 1

subd. 2 & 3

1 2 7

2 3

Hazardous Wastes 3 1 5
609.671 4 7

5 2
-

.. 1 . o .
6 7

Adulteration (without death or bodily harm)

3 1
609.687, subd. 3(3)

'lieal/Simulated Wea pans of Mass Destruction

609.712 (Effective 7/1/2002) .
NA/ .
0

2 2 2
Fraudulent or Improper Financing Statements
3 2 1 1 4
609.7475 {Efective 8/1/2006)
4 1 1 1 3

1 1 1
' '

Gambling Acts
,' 2 1 2 4
V
.

609.76, subd. 3,- 4, 5, 6, or 7

3 1 4
1 2

Lawful Gambling Fraud 2 4

609.763 3 1 7

4 2

Fa lsely Impersonating Another, 609.83 1 1 13

6 . Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

’
. f ».:,[._,

EASSIéNéo‘u
K
..
. , u l

19812018
.

7
'

5—915”?
{offingKEAND

426114:

2017
‘
f
I .

v~1MINNTSTiAi<§l

.
-

~
*

'
'U'l."
mbérsohating Another 1

m.“
'Ifa'ls'ély i

509.83
1
cont’d

-U1
.
11

N
Police Radios During Commission of Crime

3.._1_.H....0_ 0 _..2
Lu
609.856

.
U1
‘3
gnauthorized Computer Access, 609.891, subd. 2(a){b) 2:
J ...
Computer Encryption, 609.8912 {Efiective 8/1/2006} N/A
. .
'-2 .
a, .e, =3 ,

#32

_3 _.2
4
,
.
2‘ . x
“an.
. an é‘ ~

6
:‘Raolgeteering (Rico)
.
_ed9‘.904
_
.

QbSelcgén-é Matear‘lélé D'stnbuvonwsu ‘m'ra,

"

Metal Penetrating Bullets, 624.74 m

.
3-193,
Wir‘ézcom'fnunicationEEViolfitioris-'
"626A:02,2626A:03,-qc4626Aflfi,1 _.

Failure to Report, 62.6.1556p‘sub8; 6 N/A

Total 60 60 '60 60 75 85 1,205**

*
These rankings representthe severity levels in effecton/afterAugust 1, 2002. On that date, a newSeverityLevel 7 was
inserted in the Sentencing Guidelines Grid, with old severity ieveis7, 8, 9, and 10 becoming 8, 9, 10, and 11.
** Between 1981 and
2018, there were 1,626 u nranked offensa. Because 421are no longer unmnked, the "1981—2018
TOTAL CASES" totals 1,205.

2018 Unranked Ofienses Report

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Sentencing Practices for Aiding an Offender, Accomplice

After the Fact
This section gives statistics concerning sentencing practices from 2001 through 2018 for the unranked offense of
Aiding an Offender, Accomplice After the Fact under Minn. Stat. § 609.495. subd. 3.

The statutory maximum penalty for Aiding an Offender, Accompiice Afterthe Fact, is dependent on the crime
the offender has alleged to have aided. According to the statute, the accomplice may be sentenced to not more
than one-half of the statutory maximum sentence that could be imposed on the principal offender for the crime
of violence listed under Minn. Stat. § 609.11. subd. 9. (See Table 4 for a complete list of possible underlying
criminal acts.) Becausa this is an unranked offense, the sentencing court must assign a severity level prior to
pronouncing the sentence. (SeeAppendix 1, "Unra nked Offenses,” on page 22.)

case Volume

Figure 1 displays the number of offenders who were sentenced between 2001 and 2018 with Aiding an
Offender, Accomplice After the Fact, as the most serious offense sentenced.3There were 20 cases sentenced
under this statute in 2018. There have been, on average, 23 cases peryearsince 2001.

Figure 1. Number of Ojj‘enders Sentencedfor Aiding an Ojj‘ender, Accomplice After the Fact, 2001—2018
4
5

4O
tau :Ecwm Emucmto

35

30

25

20
9.5 U6 38:22

15

10

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

3
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelina Commision (MSGC) monitoring data are offende r-based, meaning cases re present
offenders rather than individual charges. Offenders sentencedwithin the same countyin a one—month period are generally
counted onlyonce, based on theirmostserious offense.

8 Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Case-Level Information

The following two ta bles (Table 2 and Table 3) list detailed case-level information for Aiding an Offender,
Accom plice After the Fact offenders. Table 2, which contains data for cases sentenced in 2015 through 2018,
records the underlying criminal act and its severity level, but only if those facts are apparent on the face of the
criminal complaint, plea petition, or other court record.‘ When those facts are not apparent, details of the
underlying offense are left blank. lnTable 3, which contains data for cases sentenced from 2001 through 2014,
details of the underlying offense are not recorded, but district court case numbers are provided for those who
wish to obtain more information from court records.

In both tables a single asteriskindicates a redacted record with juvenile criminal history, and ”12‘" equals 12
months and one day.

Table 2. Aiding an Ofiender, Accomplice after the Fact, 2015—2018

L: .6 .ewgmhsf
l ¢

iwaWm”.
'
:"cntsygm .- I

Anoka CR173291 Murder2

"Hennéfifi§ afiBEZJSiGSt’
'Hennepin CR1633348 Att. Murde r2 11 Commit
' '

.Ir'iefnnéiiin; f'; ‘fCRi’iziiASs »

Murder2 Comm":
‘
Hennepin CR1633308 Commit
1

.Hénnéblinf- brutal-37:3: Ate-:i-Mafaeijz; 11‘.

-

CommIt
Hennepin CR1719203 Murder2 11 Commit
'

33:91.13? '62 :L
.1 ".Cofn'g‘rii .

Hennepin CR177047 Stay

' ‘ ...

"‘Henhepih;'-'~i ZEJSEBSL'Gg'SZSfl .-<_Eo:'r‘nirfiit‘

Hennepin CR1711978 Commit

'Hfér‘i‘ri‘e‘pih a-é-féiaiiiiaioé
"1 é'dnimit \ we. 3:

ltasca CR181178 Drug 1 D8 Commit

'*s;.s@va.;'“'.
{~41

1' Numeral.- ,
' ‘Miile Lac; 1-,; .nCRlV359 -
1i.
Commit
U1

Nicollet CR17379
‘V
"va3,
'
1w

O Lmsted 19R181856'\
11 Commit
:Llumpo.oop'1200

.
Ramsey CR173265
iii
.I

-; 1
“Ramsey; -: 2¢aivsgaqr t
St. Louis DUCR17825 Commit
x

'

Dakota ,‘ .»;L_ éHAcR1645 28 .

Underlyingcriminal acts are abbreviated; refer to Table 4 for full offense names.
4

2018 Unranked Ofienses Rep art 9

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

31:" a;
1-; "1 i
.. fiTéii!§;4V)_y.,. LDEFi‘ifii‘JEE
Hennepin CR1517668 Murder2 Commit
Hennepin CR1533506 Assault2 6 6 0 Stay
Hennepin CR1533507 Assaultl 9 6 0 Stay
Hennepin CR1610172 Att. Murder2 11 7 0 Stay
Hennepin CR1610173 Att. Murder2 11 7 0 Stay
Hen’nepin CR1610410 Felonw/Gun 6 8 2 Commit
Hennepin CR1621354 Att. Murderl N/A 9 1 Commit
Hennepin CR1628407 6 3 Commit
2017’
cant. Hennepin CR1628974 Murder2 11 8 3 Commit
Hennepin CR1713015 Assault2 6‘ 5 0 Stay
Hennepin CR17664 6 1 Stay
Ramsey .
CR158498 “Homicide” 8 6 Commit 111
Ramsey CR159638 Assault2 6 2 0 Stay 121
Ramsey CR1637'51 _ Murder 2 11 8 2 Commit v53
"_ Ramsey CR164650 Murder2 11 9 0 Commit 86
'

Ramsey 'CR17293 Murder2 1o 9 ‘3 Commit 122

St. Louis VICR16823 Murder 2 11 8 0 Commit 48
Waba’sha‘ CR16924 6 6 Commit" so
*
1 1 Stay 121
'

*
3 2 Stay 15
*
7 3 Commit 54
Anoka CR161821 A‘gg.Rob.1 8 y
4 0- Stay _
121 _

Anoka CR161822 Agg. Rob. 1 8 4 0 Stay 121

"

Belframi 'cR1'53'927' Murder2 11 Commit

~

9 o .86
Beltrami ‘CR161912 4 3 Stay 21
Beltrami :CR153928 Murder2 11 9 4 ,
Commit 134
,
Dakota HACR142259 ”Homicide" 10 0 Commit 150
H‘ennepjn CRI434787 9 y
1 Commit 98
Hennepin CR1522568 9 0 Commit 86
2.016: Hennepin CR1523345 .
'10 o Commit 150
J ‘
Hennepin CR1512667 ”Homicide" 9 0 Commit 86
. Hennepin CR1527937 . Agg.Rob,1 8 5 4 Commit 38
Hennepin CR1517995 Drive-byShooting 8 8 0 Commit 48
" ' "

Hennepin ,CR15_1'084_6 7 1 stay __

42
Hennepin CR1418399 7 0 Stay 36
3?
Hennepin. LCR1523949 ‘ 8 0 Commit 48 .
' CR15490 Murder 2 11 8 0 Commit 48
Lyon :

Martin ‘CR16775 Burglarys 4 '4 ‘1 'Stay 1's

Mower CR151911 Assault2 6 1 0 Stay 121
Olmsted CRiS4460' Drive-byShooting 8 6 .3 Commit 39

10 Minn eso ta Sentencing Guidelines Co mmission

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

:: .11-
i 1
“6:.
:‘F-M lPres mfiwefien‘tence Lyn—«—

{Un erlymgl
‘ /A55Igned LCrrmmal
7

Crlmlnai‘Act Hist "1y:” ‘ N lDuratron

:(see
.

Tablé’l‘l) Level Level ‘Pisfeé’sit‘iah ’(months) :

-.i-oo~a.1.r=-w_~
Olmsted CR158284 0 Stay 121
.
23.

dungeow
Pennington ($163210 _' ”Bu r‘él‘ary” Corrimit .

Stay 121
Ramsey CR149114 Agg. Rob. 1
Stay" _' as
'-

Ra'ms’ev 'CR15547S Burglary-1 . I‘d" ,_

261,6. St. Louis VlCR14633 Murder2 11 Commit 78

'
"
'cénte
Wihdna CR152846 stay 3.6
42

o‘I—I
3-4
Winona CR152848 Murder2 11
'
Stay '

Wright CR144872U :‘cdm‘mif' 33.1150

Commit 180

LQm_m-'B
Benton CR14882 '

Dakdta H‘AER1’42105 Ag‘g‘fib‘b. 1 4

seq" .128 _
.

Hennepin CR1410253 Felon w/Gun Commit 39

‘ "

Hannepin CR145026 Murdeijz 11 commie-r 7

_ ': .‘ 7:134

CR152031 Stay 121

Hennepin

no,“
. lO'orll

i—n'.~':—xd'.'oi¢.ua=o w’io'r—Ié‘ogva—In-‘A
Cornmjt’
'

Hennepin c31425‘121 1 Murderz ._. 5.8 :

15

H-eH-b.inmF-l:-b-lmooiod.oooo.-P-
Hennepin CR1427585 Stay
.

.Henfiepin CR1424203 : mum/lumen . 1.1‘ I .Conjm'it -j. EQ'fiSEF

‘4
__

. _

CR1511750 Drugs 2 8 Commit 48

Hennepin ’ "
’Héihh‘éjpi'n ;9R13‘3ffiééé’. Mdz 1066311
-

{commits .2151
CR13 30861 Murderz 10 or 11 Commit 58
Hennepin
'

flannéplfi'..- 'I‘Efletlgzgfi. -
i‘
:Felon wjGun
-
': gimme .;*-'-;1.:1",1.‘1‘"Z

Hennepin CR14316 Stay

‘

._le5.te.d, ~CR.1.454.2_5_‘ 'AB'EI-RObJV : ‘Stav ..

)-

. 1. ,

Olmsted CR145265 Commit

‘
Polk ' 3
moses». .;Tl.3f!iu'gsl2.r9ra 8dr.f§.gx
‘_ Ramsey CR149 665 Stay
.‘E

'
E

Ramsey 736351331593
= Stay .5; 2
'

Ramsey CR156885 Stay

~J.-iI-l=-'U1‘-i=-fldé

'
-
i-iiliiiliisfil—f
‘
Ramsey CR145626 Agg. Rob. 1
W; t‘
can 14.0

f
: atlases/1" :{cagmazzg' .

Redwood CR15294 Felon w/Gun

'
.

. Scott ,"CRilllfifiilZ-x. - .Mfliaéfif :

g

"
Scott CR155904 Crim. Sex. 1

*Sen ten cing records containing juvenilehistory have been redacted.

12’: twelve months and one day.

** This calculation appears to have been erroneous. Cf. Minn. Sentencing Guidelines ‘9) 2.C.2 (presumptivesentence cannot
exceed statutory maximu m) with State v. Wilson, No. [115-1001, 2016WL 1396803 (Minn.App. Apr. 11, 2016)
(unpublished) (statutory maximum in this case was 90 months).

1.1
2018 Unranked Ofenses Report
 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Tobie 3. Aiding on Ofiender, Accompiice after the Fact, 2001—2014

4‘ ‘ EEdUht 55mm
:35“? ‘gLjlgfirfil—jgrlm
: i *
915110.13]
~
'-

: {Effi‘r
N.. ,. ze-
..__L‘ZZS—~;

ooooitsot "too-5mm
7 36
0 Stay
Becker CR14484 2 9 Commit 24
Becker CR14530 6 5 Commit 51
Becker CR14486 4 2 Stay 18
Clearwater 7
CR1034 5 1 Stay 23
Dakota HACR132141 2 4 Stay 17
Hennepin CR1335229 6 0 Stay 21
Hennepin CR1334579 8 0 Commit 48
Hennepin CR1324588 8 2 Commit 68
Hennepin CR1330858 8 0 Commit 48
Hennepin CR1339166 6 1 Stay 27
2014
Hennepin CR1327073 6 5 Commit 51
Hennepin CR1331433 9 0 Commit 86
Hennepin CR1318611 5 5 Commit 43
Hennepin CR1320832 9 1 Commit 98
OtterTail CR132162 7 0 Stay 36
Ramsey CR136445 4 0 Stay 12

Ramsey CR128245 8 5 Commit 98

'

Ramsey CR127897 6 0 Stay 21

Rice CR131690 3 5 Commit 21
Scott _
CR1317505 7 0 Stay 36
St. Louis DUCR131849 5 4 Commit 38
* 8 3 Commit 78
* 9 1 Commit 98
Carlton CR122458 8 1 Commit 58
Carver CR12569 2 2 Stay 13
'

Dakota HAC8123046 1 0 Stay 121

Hennepin CR1242029 7 5 Commit 66

Hennepin CR12701O 7 o comrriit 36
Hennepin CR1235882 8 3 Commit 78
2013
Hennepin CR1317051 8 0 Commit 43
Hennepin CR131608 2 0 Stay 121

Hennepin CR1234948 4 1 Stay 15

Hennepin CR1135955 8 0 Commit 48

Hennepin CR1235106 6 0 Stay 21
Hennepin CR1230383 5 1 Stay 23
'

Nobles CR11392 3 1 Stay 13

Pine CR11493 2 0 Stay 121
'
Ramsey CR129073 8 2 Commit ‘68

12 Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

1‘
Ramsey CR137117 Stay
‘
_ Ramsey $122424 . Cémfnit
Ramsey CR132978 Stay
Ramsey (ZR-13:21.28" Commit

io‘~w.-Iso-boo.w”wwoom'weopowobwomow
Redwood CR 12 1072 Stay
'

#OONmOOLDNmCWOOH-F->NLUOOHOOOONIDNID
'

.St-L'duis; _DUCR131_217 Commit

'-
‘ "
Commit
in
St. Louis DUCR124021
'

‘
.
Scott ..
Cal-210503 Stv
.
Scott CR12 20586 Commit
‘
-
Washington CR123J,6_0 Stat 12": -:
‘
CR12184S
.1

Wright Stay
i ‘Crow Wing cRiizse; Stay;-
q
..; CrowWing CR112654 Stay
"

1*
Dakota? ?
MAC-@256" Stay
5‘

Hennepin CR1217805 Commit

'

": Hehnépinnf‘ CR1127861 cdi‘ngiit

b y.
.
2-
.
:(u
.

Hennepin CR1130538 Commit

"

Stav
'-

hang.
-a
Ramsey CR112711 Commit“
'
cm
'

Ramsay ‘1
cRTitééié 3
:

Ramsey CR117473
'

sgainséyi ..
I Cfiiifififiii ,
Stevens CR11226 Commit
"
. $11221st
: ~
Stay ..‘ '
7',

»-.§tjeir'séhsls5’
\
Yellow
CR12315
o
'N'a-‘Phoml-I

Medicine
m;‘6‘wo"iw'6wéo|$wm

«.
I

.
Blue Earth CR104803
’ ? Dakoté ‘Zn’ii'ii :. 1.; .aAoR1O34f31 13-"
7%

'
y'ooh-oo-oobSN-joooo

Hennepin CR11480
"
Hennepln 1CB§3§5$3§;%F';. a
i

'. Hennepin CR1034306

.. ” '
IZHénhéBifi‘f
Hennepin CR1034113
.Hé'finéf"
Hennepin CR1036227 13.5
b‘o

Itasca 'CR101803 3

2018 Unranked Ofienses Report 13

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

..

’0
a

Kandiyohi CR10796 2 2 Stay 13

Mower CR111920 5 2 Stay 28
Mower CR11255 2 6 Commit 21
Olmsted CR094414 3 0 Stay 121
"

Polk CR101617 4 0 Stay 12‘

Polk CR101758 3 2 Stay 15
2011'
cant’d Polk CR101636 4 0 Stay 121

St. Louis VICR101022 9 4 Commit 134

Traverse _
CR10154 1 0 Stay 12i
Traverse CR10227 1 0 Stay 121
Wadena CR10777 6 0 Stay 21
Winona CR111077 6 2 Stay 33
* 8 1 Commit 58
'
* 2 3 1'5
Stay
* 3 Commit 33
S
* 8 2 Commit 68
Anoka 02CRO812045 9 0 Commit 86
Beltrami 04CR093770 2 1 Stay 121
18
'

Bigstone 06CR09290 5 0 Stay

Dakota 19HACR10260 1 1
=

Stay 121
'

Dodge 20CR08174 6 0 Stay '21

Dodge 20CR08173 6 0 Stay 21

'
'
Dodge 20CR08731 6 0 Stay 21‘
Hennepin 27CR1051162 4 2 Stay 18
I

Hennepin 27CR1011889 8 O Commit 48

, Hennepin 27CR1026155 8 0 48
2010
‘ '
Commit
‘-
Hennepin 27CR0841584 9 2 Commit 110
Hennepin 27011037290 8 0 Commit 48
Hennepin 27CR0949618 9 0 Commit 86
Hennepin 27CR105285 9 0 Commit 86
Polk 60C'R‘0'9‘250 _
a
2 '0 Stay" 12‘
Ramsey 62CR0818267 6 8 Commit 57
‘
' ' '
Ramaey 62c309'15'7‘67 5 3 Commit- 3'3
"
Rice 66CR09969 5 0 Stay 18
'

Rice. 66CR094062 5 0 Stay -1'8

'

St. Louis 69DUCR101224 4 3 Stay 21

.
'
’
"scottit‘
'

70630922265" 4 0 Stay 121

Winona 85CR081887 5 6 Commit 54
Winona 85cao'92793 4 4 Commit '24 ;

Winona 85CR092122 4 0 Stay 121

.14 Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

' ‘1
V

‘ J ,l'u 5.
.
‘p—dA-h-u-J v: x
r =
‘-
I:- L *“n o
3!"?
ntifii-i

Commit
.
Stay
* Stay

OOUl-P-NOOVU'ltOi-J‘NNU'I'OO
3|:
: .SF—a‘l...’

Anoka CR082117 Stay

' "

Dakota "HACR082458 Commit.

Hennepin CR089508 Stay

Hennepin :
'CRoaztali' Stay _"

Hennepin CR0821808 Commit

'

Stay
!

Hennepin 'caoasosse" t3 31.2?

CR0934142 Stay 121

Hennepin
__Henn_epin ‘CR0816466: 1.:
,

.S'tay ,

CR092780 Commit
Hennepin ‘

10

z
Hennebip' "_GR0930§15 ”Gamma
Commit
midom'L'nmEUi no.5 ko‘oo'g

Hennepin CR0826831
'

.
Hennepin criqs‘tiadas Commit
;_ Milie Lacs CR072101 Commit
h' "
Pine CR09‘4I .— ' .- .lsiaVi
‘
A

PoIk CR073084 Commit

I
'. r...‘
'

Ramsév .9R992333‘t a: SW L

":1 'L1123‘;
.wi~',")..
..
..’..A
..
4.2: -.~

,. Ramsey CR09 2337 Stay

Rérfisevr , f7- ¢éd§47467ewrnx

. » CR08752 Commit
Ramsey .

‘ .. ‘ "
'x

‘=§"Ra‘mseyf CR69377§ 53; 1:;1cginmit,‘

Stearns CR0816714 Stay
'S'h-m'h-p

, .
’..* Stay
m

‘ A
7* 3‘“ _ .
3.“
Stay:
I. Anoka CR08756 Stay
‘ ‘ "

Anoka" '3... -
_ K695007330! LCommIt L
.3:
4:50:34: rn\i N

Beltrami CR082541 Stay

iii
00-00}:

'. Casi $072435 istavgz-i‘j' ..

J

'
Cottonwood CR07736 Stay
. quakota f. =
Kfipibbéézisi;
Dakota HACR08314 Stay
‘
stay
‘-
'
”Dakota
-
.’.. f: "K307063267 7. .

**Crime Committedfor the Benefit of a Gang, unde r Minn. Stat. § 609.229, adds 24 months to the presumptive sentence
due to the victim being underage 18.

2018 Unranked Ofenses Report 15

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

‘
31‘; 3.1.1.
191.53, ‘r‘t": 68 {C
Yé‘a'r‘ ‘96}! MY? v
< m ms)
.
‘
‘
t. fSEaIs'éZN'uimabé?“ i
iStb
sfi'liiénfiéitiéfi‘. ‘
oz
Dakota K906004302 8 2 Commit 68
Goodhue CR08894 8 o Commit 48
Goodhue CR0888O 8 o Commit 48
Hennepin CR089199 3 1 Stay 13
2008’
cont’d Hennepin 7123062 10 0 Commit 162
Hennepin CR0834959 2 0 Stay 121

Hennepin CR07014772 7 0 Stay 36

Hennepin 7004418 6 2 Stay 33
Hennepin CR0831895 1 0 Stay 121

Hennepin CR07125563 6 0 Stay 21

Hennepin 7019353 8 0 Commit 48
Hennepin CR06074377 10 4 Commit 222
Hennepin 7010749 9 4 Commit 134
Hennepin CR07102486 8 0 Commit 48
Hennepin CR07033717 8 3 Commit 78
Hennepin CR06064264 9 0 Commit 86
Itasca CR072289 1 0 Stay 121
Kanabec CR07533 6 4 Commit 45
Lyon CR07788 3 0 Stay 121
Olmsted CR071134" 3 2 'Stay iS_
Polk CR073085 3 0 Stay 121
'

‘
Ramsey K007003293 s 1 Stay "23'
Ramsey K708000689 6 3 Commit 39
'

StearnS 'CR0711542 2 0 Stay 121

Steele CR061148 1 0 Stay 121
_:

"
".5007 Winona CR07922 3 0 Stay '12“
-
Winona CR063371 8 1 Commit 58
'

Wright 03074739 6 2 Stay 3'3

*
5 3 Commit 33
'
*
8 3 Commit 78
Chisago CR051105 3 2 Stay 15
Hennepin 6042372 1 0 Stay- 12‘
6016095 18
!

Hennepin 5 0 Stay
Hennepin 6036447 8 0 commit 43
Hennepin 6085789 4 0 Stay 121
-

Hennepin", CR06038354 8 2 Commit 68 h

"
Hennepin 6016084 8 0 Commit 48
Hennepin. 6023217 8 5 Commit 98
Hennepin 6014694 8 6 Commit 108
Hennepin CR06062407 .
8 o Commit 48

16 Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

"is
..
9.5“ 1

E,
fiasgiflumbs

[D
(0

48
“in
q
:H
\ v

L .X\

Hennepin CR06030056 4 Commit

0._3_0._0
4_2_1_5_5_oo_9_3_1_8_7
-

Itasca .
=_c3055032"“ Stay?
Itasca CR06 13 84 Stay
"
a -.
Lyon 2:
CR07847 _"S¢év
Olmsted CR064239 Stay
Olmsted; 5:- cabana-52 .
335?:
Ramsey K306004377 Commit
.

“ *
.
Redugdj‘gdf -K20;iooosi_$9, j _
.

Commit

oooo‘mo
St. Louis DUCR065316 Stay 121
i '

St. Louis K7.93.1012é6“ Stay

Wright K205003794 Commit 48
.-:*
"

o_'lc>fmto!o.'o~ogioowQNQNDHN
Stay
Anoka K40 60 11273 10 Commit 165
taxi-pic;

Anoka" _
'1 pKéoé’éizszia ‘ica'r'nmit
'
Carlton CROSS Stay
'
J‘ i
' _,

Ciiippgiiiéi-T __
,-
CR0613 ‘ ‘_
istéY-T'
‘

Chisago CR051106 Stay

‘ '

:DEKOia, emanatin- Stay

—
- Hennepin 6054131 Commit
'3

36044305 7:5. Stay».

5076718 Stay
'

sozzsss Commit
6037253 Stay
'..-
5655185 Stv-- :--
,.

'
Hennepin 6024960 Stay
; ‘sH‘etiniéfiifiiL-‘rf : 505175.32 1";

-‘~j Hennepin 4070571 Commit

Hp -
, GOiSsié‘S -.: Commlt ,

'
Hennepin 6025458 Commit
, ‘16-,N~I:- -,,_,.
Stay if:
=1,
N,

I
YIVPplk-Lizi "“3" Kipsoois'éism '
o '0! o

«__ Ramsey K806001443 Stay

V

(Ramsey f .E' V V K165502178” ‘7’

Ramsey K805002338 Stay

‘ Commit
'35.;

:3:
SHOWS ‘.
Liz-Io

Stay
column

K405001204
:0

‘
. K104009279
i

cmmt
K204000 106 Commit
'

5051239

2018 Unranked Ofenses Report 17

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Hennepin 5024539 6 0
'

Hennepin 4077487 8 1 Commit 58

Hennepin 4077481 4 0 Stay 121
Mahnomen K203000520 3 3 Stay .17
Mower KX04001082 7 1 Stay 42
2095' Mower' K605000635 5 0 Stay 18
cant’d Olmsted K604003469 1 1 Stay 121

Olmsted K604004556 3 0 Stay 121

Otter Tail K304001817 3 0 Stay 121
~

Ramsey K504003288 6 0 Stay 21

Ramsey K004003831 7 0 Commit _
36
Ramsey K304003287 6 0 Stay 21
Ramsey K704004233 9 0 Commit 86
Ramsey .
K604003896 9 0 Commit 86'
St. Louis K004600751 1 0 Stay 121
'

St. Louis K204600752 _1 0 Stay 112‘

St. Louis K504600440 5 6 Commit 48
Stearns K605001648 6 0 _ Stay__ 21
a 8 4 Commit 88
Clearwater K204000228 2 2 Stay 13
CrowWing K504001092 1 0 Stay 121
'

Dakota K004000814" 2 0 .
Stay 121
Freeborn K703000609 1 0 Stay 121
' '

Henfiepin 3082660 '1 0 Stay 1.2‘

Hennepin 3074259 2 0 Stay 21.21

"Henfiopin . 7
3058941, 4 3 Stay 21
2004 Hennepin 3070906 8 0 Commit 48
Hennepin; 3049845 9 3 Commit 122
McLeod Kx03001177 3 0 Stay 121
Olmsted K604001897 3 5 'COr‘fimit 21
Olmsted K404001896 8 1 Commit 58
Polk K303001165 2 0 Stay 121

Ramsey K304004116 5 0 Stay 18

' ‘ ‘
Redwood K503000580 8 ‘0 Commit 48.
Redwood KX03000670 9 1 Commit 98
-
St, Louis ,

K703102116 .
_ 2 0. Stay 12.1

Stearns K503003287 4 0 Stay 121

I

"‘-* 9 5 Commit . .146.

72603‘
.
a

'
* 5 3 Commit 33
Anoka K903007723 7 0 Stay 36

18 Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Itfaéiétwgfit ffiqfififififihi
Dakota K802002516 121
-
.
Hennepin 2093292 . I
. .121
1' Hennepin 2041933 121

Henhefiin 2097406
Hennepin 3042603 48
:?H_t'=_-n[ieoin 3016014“ ' Corfirpit
Olmsted KX02001106 Stay 12'
OtterTail Kx03I00047S Stat; .12.‘ .
Pope K403 000105 Stay 36
'
‘

Rams’ey K603002382 ..Stay l . .121

Roseau K802000451 Commit 48

-

I
I,Is_tf: Laws? ,. K202160421: CoImErItit "i‘..5.o""’ia'.i

Waseca KX01000458 Commit 39

"L" ..
"""

:I‘Wa‘shifig’tqn IK302003j08$I¢II€g Stay '- "1:4:33' '__'

'
‘
I: Anoka K401001632 Stay 121
"‘“

BIéltrami KX0100155§§*:.;:”5' stéy‘"I 1-I7

, a»; Carver K201001157 Stay 18
‘
icaffai“
"
K401b01§21"""‘ "Comffiif 18 f"?

‘: Carver K201001076 Commit 43

k701000460“ Stay fI
<

"raéipafilt'<
. 1064513
Hennepin Stay
-, "l-A 14‘; 31-.” .. *

”20313553.?
: 1». e
.
.IHenhepm .gf

Hennepin 1090641 Stay

1166666111. 1661446
Jackson K401001081 Commit
.. V

Stay
’9

'
St LOUIS K702300555
'

St. Louis K402100071 Commit

Anoka K400007629 0 Stay

'
~ Commlt ”.1
iEEI'tr’Emi-iéfi" ; :KBfi'ififii§ééi.Z...=“ . .2":

Dakota"
Dakota
:
K201002520 0
‘0
Stay
J ‘ ’
vKédQOQZWE’LEQiZ :1 . ..

Dakota K500002582 0 Stay

101106 l‘ 710'
*'

VHehrSIe‘pin '1‘
. ‘s'tay" :
"I"?
Hennepin 100520 2 Stay 15

'
HIe‘nnepin'
‘
99076184 a, o. Stag/2., .121;
3;. .. Hennepin 84772 1 Stay 23
' '

:.‘
"1
'x
.1” “HeInhep'tn 1022600 0 Stay" 021 I

Hennepin 91753 1 Stay 27

21
"
"
1’" {Hehhébifi‘iyf . 37712.8: 57‘ 0. tS'iév'fiz».

20.18 Unranked Offenses Report 19

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

._
,:='

w o
1 _ .. . .-‘ rs_ on
McLeod K301000478 6 3 Commlt 39
'

Nobles K300000504 4 0 Stay 121

2001, Olmsted K199003833 4 0 121
Stay
cont'd
Ramsey _
K300001451 8 0 Commit 48
St. Louis KXQQ 601096 2 1 Stay 121
"

Winona K201001073 3 0 Stay 121

Notes: 12 ’= twelve months and one day.

*Sen ten cing records contain ing juvenilehistory have been redacted.

Table 4. Felony CriminaIActs Listed in Minn. Stat. § 609.11, Subd. 9

Murder lst Degree Murder 1

Murder 2nd Degree(lntentional Murderer Drive-Byshootings) MurderZ 11
MurderZnd DegreelUnintentional Murder) MurderZ 10
Murder 3rd'Degree— 609.195(a) Murder3 10
Murder 3rd Degree—609.195lb) Murder3 9
Assault lst Degree (Great Bodily Harm) Assault 1 9
ASsault 2nd Degree (Dangerous Weapon) Assault 2., 6
Assault 3rd Degree Assault 3 4
Burglary lst Degree (with Weapon or Assault) Burglary 1 .
8
Burglary lst Degree (Occupied Dwelling) Burglary 1 6
2nd Degree (Dwelling/Bank)(Government Building, Religious
Burglary Burglary 2 5
.

Est, Historic Property, orStho‘ol Building)

'

Burglary 2nd DegreelPharmaq/lTool) Burglaryz 4

Burglary 3rd Degree (Non Residential) Burglary 3 4
Kidnapping (Great Bodily Harm) Kidnapping 9
: kidnapping (Unsafe Release) (Victim Under16). Kidnapping 8.,__

Kidnapping (Safe Release/No Great BodilyHarm) Kidnapping 6

False imprisonment (Substantial Bodily Harm) False Imp. 4
False imprisonment (Restraint) (Demonstrable Bodily Harm) False Imp. 3
-

Manslaughter lst Degree— 609. 20(1), (2) 8: (5) Mansl. 1 9

Manslaughter lst Degree— 609.206) & (4) Mansl. 1 8
Man's—laughter 2 nd Dé‘gr'ee —‘tulpable Negligence Mansl. 2 8
ManslaughterZnd Degree— HuntingAccident Mansl.2 5
Aggravated RobbeIy lst Degree Agg. Rob. 1 8-

Aggravated Robbery 2nd Degree Agg. Rob. 2 6

Simple Robbery-_ .Robbery 5
Tampering with a Witness Aggravated lst Agg. Wit. Tmp. 9
Degree
Tampering with 3 Witness lst Degree Wit. Tmp. 1 5

Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

x
A

Criminal Sexual Conduct lst Degree—subd.1la)(h)(c)(d)(e)(f) Sex. 1

Crim.
D
A
B
A
1'

Criminal Sexual Conduct-2ndDegree-— subd.1(c)(d)(e)(f) Crim. Sex. 2

Criminal Sexual Conduct 2nd Degree— subd.1(a)(b) Crim. Sex. 2 D

C
I

—
criminal Sexual Conductsrd Degree su bd. -1l(c)(d)(h)(i)(j) Crim. Sex. 3 .

Criminal Sexual Conduct3rd Degree —subd.1(a)(b)(e), 2(1) Crim.Sex. 3 D

l

Criminalséxuél COnHuttérd Degréer SUhdE‘l‘lbll 2(2) trim-_‘Seiifi' .‘:-: _' .’ :G .7

Escape with Violencefrom Felony Offense Escape 8

I
sexually Dangerous
337-
.‘
Escape from Felony . _

' Offense/(Evil Commitment,

,..
_ _

“ l
Persons .‘Escape 3."

Escape, Mental Illness/from Civil Commitment Escape 1

Escape 'w/ Violléncefror'n gross Misdemean o'r/ Misdemeanor _foense _ Escape Un'ranked
Arson lst Degree Arson 1 8
_

f
'

,ArSQn2nd Degree Arso'n 2 . g _S

Arson 3rd Degree Arson 3 3

‘
Drive—By Shodtinngou/ard Person, Occubl'éd'llrliotor Vehicle/Building). Drivel—By 8W."-

Drive-By Shooting (Unoccupied MotorVehicleor Building) Drive-By 3

.Sisalki‘néziAésfiévétédéillyéémn)rSiSUbd-alalfaii. ?
a I; I agitating... .-
4
Certain Persons Notto Have Firearms orAmmunition Felon w/Gun 6
"
'
Importing Cdntrolled Su _bstan ces Across State Bdrders Importation is,
Manufacture Any Amount of Meth. Mfg. 9
Methamphetamine
Controlled su‘ _b_StanjCe Crime 1‘s_tDegreé_. Drugsl
'
3 :9 a

ControlledSubstance Crime2nd Degree Drugs 2 8

”eaarcriéa‘subaéncecrime=3rdoégrea
"
.. 1-
mug-53‘: . '5
Possession ofSubstances with lntentto Manufacture
Precursors 5
Methamphetamine
Cb‘inf'rollsedSfifiifi‘ihééfiiimi'é‘sih Peaiéélsjfiéé ..._. i. _. .- . Drtfgsfi. .,
., . .45"
An hydrous Ammonia (Tamper/Theft/Transport) Anhydrous 3

MethamphetamlneCri_m'e_s involving Childrenand VulnerabieAduits ;M_e‘th/l<ids: ‘. #3:?

--

3:3

Controlled Substance Crime 5th Degree Drugs 5 2

.MedicalCannabisViolations(Submission of False Records) Cannabis; B142.

Medical CannabisViolations (Diversion by patient, registered

Cannabis 1
Designated Caregiver, or Parent) (Intentional Diversion)
"
”Sale ofSimulatéd ControlledSubstance Simulated

2018 Unranked Oflenses Report 21

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Appendices
Appendix 1. How the Guidelines Work
In General

Minnesota's guidelines are based on a grid structure. The vertical axis of the Grid represents the severity of the
offense for which the offender was convicted. The horizontal axis represents a measure of the offender’s
criminal history. The Commission has ranked felony level offenses into eleven severity levels. Offenses included
in each severity level are listed in the Severity Reference Table in the MinnesotaSentencing Guidelines and
Commentary.

The criminal history index measures the offender’ s prior record and consists of four measures of prior criminal
behavior: (1) a weighted measure of prior felony sentences; (2) a limited measure of prior misdemeanor/gross
misdemeanor sentences; (3) a limited measure ofthe prior seriousjuvenile record; and (4) a ”custody status“
measure which indicates if the offender was on probation or parole when the current offense was committed.

The recommended (presumptive) guideline sentence is found in the cell of the sentencing grid in which the
offender’s criminal history score and severity level intersect. The Guidelines recommend imprisonment in a state
prison in the non-shaded cells of the grid.

The Guidelines generally recommend a stayed sentence for cells in the shaded area ofthe applicable Grid.
When a sentence is stayed, the court typically places the offender on probation and may require up to a' year of
local confinement (i.e., local correctional facility, county jail or workhouse) as a condition of probation. Other
conditions such as fines, restitution, community work service, treatment, house arrest, etc. may also be applied
to an offender's sentence. There are, however, a number of offenses that ca rrya presumptive prison sentence
regardless o'fwhere the offender is on the applicable Guidelines Grid (e.g., offenses involving dangerous
weapons which carry mandatory minimum prison terms, and drug and burglary offenses).

The number in the cell is the recommended length of the prison sentence in months. As explained above,
sentences in shaded boxes are generally stayed probationary sentences. For cases in the non-shaded cells of the
applicable Grid, the Guidelines also provide a narrow range of months around the presumptive duration that a
judge may pronounce and still be within the Guidelines.

Un ranked Offenses

Some felony offenses are designated as unranked offenses. An unra nked offense typically has one or more of
the following characteristics: (1) the offense is rarely prosecuted; (2) the offense covers a wide range of
underlying conduct; or (3) the offense is new, and the severityof a typical offense cannot yet be determined.

Minn. Guidelines Section 2.A.4 contains the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy for unranked offenses. When
sentencing an unranked offense, the court must assign an appropriate severitylevel for the offense and specify

22 Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

on the record why that particular level was assigned. The court may consider, but is not limited to, the following
factors:

The gravity of the specific conduct underlying the unranked offense;

The severity level assigned to any ranked offense with elements that are similar to the elements of the
unranked offense;
c. The conduct of and severitylevel assigned to other offenders for the same unranked offense; and
d. The severity level assigned to other offenders engaged in similar conduct.

lt is not possible to fully explain all of the policies in this brief summary. Additional information on the Guidelines
is available by contacting the Commission's office. The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary is
available online at http:/jmn.gov/5entencing-guidelines.

2018 Unranked Ofenses Report 23

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Appendix 2. Standard Sentencing Guidelines Grid, Effective August 1, 2018

Presumptive sentence lengths are in months. italicized numbers within the grid denote the discretionary range within which a
court may sentence without the sentence being deemed a departure. Offenders with stayed felony sentences may be subject
to local confinement.
CRIMINAL HISTORY SCORE
SEVERITY LEVEL OF
CONVICTION OFFENSE D 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more
(Example offenses listed in italics)
Murder! 2nd Degree 306 326 346 366 386 406 426
(intentional murder; drive—by— 1 1 2
261-367 278-391 295-415 312—439 329-463 346-480 2 363—480
shootings)

150 165 180 195 210 225 240

m:3:? 3;$1312922: 10
128-180 141-198 153-216 166-234 179-252 192—270 204-288
(unmgenfionafmwder)
86 98 110 122 134 146 158
A55”” it, 15 I‘D agree 9
74- 103 84— 1 17 94- 132 104- 146 1 14- 160 125—175 135-189

Agg. Robbery, ist Degree 48 58 68 78 88 98 108

DegreeM/Weapo” 8
Mfg/(33f; 4157 50—69 58-87 67-93 75-105 84-117 92- 129

Felony DWI 66 72
. . . . 54 60
F of a 7 36 212 [4'8
@1333}:525330" 46-64 51-72 57-79 62-84 2- 3
Assault, 2nd Degree - 39 45 51 57
B r l , 'l t D egree (0 “WM d 6 211 33
34-46 39-54 44-61 49-68
”Dig-"”9;
Residential Burglary 33 38 43 48
5 18 23 218
Simple Robbery 29-39 33-45 37—51 41-5 7

. . 24 27 30
N onresrden tla l B urg lcry 4 1;! 118 21
21—28 2332 26-36
. 19 21 23
Th eft Crzmes(0 ver 31 5,000) 3 1323 ills 135' i157.
77—22 18 25 20%?
Theft Crimes ($5,000 or less) 21
Check Forgery ($25 i—$2,500)
2 192': 113 I15 1
18-25

Assault, 4th Degree 19

1 12 :13 1115 £112
Fleeing a Peace Officer 17—22

1121=One year and one day

Presumptive commitment to state imprisonmentJ-‘Irst-deg ree murder has a mandatory life sentence and is excluded from
the Guidelines under Minn. Stat. § 609.185. See section 2_.E, for policies regarding those sentences controlled by law.
Presumptive stayed sentence; at the discretion of the court, up to one year of confinement and other non-jail sanctions can
be imposed as conditions of pro bation. However. certain offenses in the shaded area of the Grid always carry a presumptive
commitment to state prison. See sections LC. and 2:;

2
Minn. Stat. § 244.09 requires that the Guidelines provide a range for sentences that are presumptive commitment to state
imprisonment of15% lower and 20% higher than the fixed duration displayed, provided that the minimum sentence is not less
than one year and one day and the-maximum sentence is not more than the statutory maximum.See section 2.C.1-2.

24 Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Appendix 3. Sex Offender Grid, Effective August 1, 2018

Presumptive sentence lengths are in months. Italicized numbers within the grid denote the discretionary range within which a
court may sentence without the sentence being deemed a departure.0ffenders with stayed felony sentences may be subject
to local confinement.
CRIMINAL HISTORY SCORE
SEVERITY LEVEL OF 6 or
° 1 2 3 4 5
More
CONVICTION OFFENSE
144 156 168 180 234 306 360
CSC lst Degree
744- 172 144- 187 144-201 153~216 199-280 261-360 306-360 2
e
90 110 130 150 195 255 300
Cgiiifiegrseflgiggig
’ 90 3- 108 94- 732 fill" 756 128- 180 166-234 27 7-300 255—300
2

Degree— 1(a)
CS C 3rd Degree—(c) (d)
48 62 76 90 1 17 1 53 1 80
(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)(l)(m)(n)(o)
Prostitution; Sex Trafficking 2nd 41-57 53-74 65-91 77-708 100-140 131—780 153-1802
Degree— 70
CS C 2nd Degree—(a) (b)(g)
CS C 3rd Degree—(a)(e)(fi or(b)with
ref. to subd. 2(1) 60 70 91 1‘19 140
Dissemination of Child 51— 60-84 78- 109 102— 142 7 79-168
Pornography (Subsequent or by
Predatory Offender)
CS C 4th Degree—(c)(d)
‘
h i k l m n o
60
‘
1
Uggflhgg g: Zigzag geiformance
(in)
51 72 (£893 8;-01220 -2120 2
Dissemination of Child
Pornography2
CS C 4th Degree—
(a)(b)(e)(f),' CS C 5th Degree; 45 59 77 84
Possession of Child Pornography
39-54 51—70 6692 72—700
(Subsequent or by Predatory
Offender)
CS C 3rd Degree—(b) with subd. 2(2);
Indecent Exposure 39 51 60
Possession of Child Pornography, 34-46 44-60 5 7-60 2
Solicit Child for Sexual Conduct2
. . 121 14 16 18 24 30 36
Registration Of Predatory Offenders 7‘21 74 721 76 74- 79 76-27 27_28 26-36 3143
12‘=One year and one day
1

Presumptive commitment to state imprisonment. Sex offenses under Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 2, have mandatorylife
sentences and are excluded from the Guidelines.See section 2.E, for policies regarding those sentences controlled by law.
including conditional release terms forsex offenders.
Presumptive stayed sentence; at the discretion of the court, up to one year of confinement and other non-jail sanctions can be
imposed as conditions of probation. However, certain offenders in the shaded area ofthe Grid may qualify for a mandatorylife
sentence under Minn. Stat.§ 609.3455, subd.4. See sections 2.C and 2.E.
2
Minn. Stat. § 244.09 requires that the Guidelines provide a range for sentences that are presumptive commitment to state
imprisonment of15% lower and 20% higher than the fixed duration displayed, provided thatthe minimum sentence is not less
than one year and one day and the maximum sentence is not more than the statutory maximum.See section 2.C.1-2.
Prostitution; Sex Trafficking is not subject to a 90-month minimum statutorypresum ptive sentence so the standard range of
3

15% lower and 20% higher than the fixed duration applies. (The range is 77—108.)

2018 Unranked Ofienses Report 25

 70-CR-20-15925
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
7/12/2021 3:41 PM

Appendix 4. Drug Offender Grid, Effective August 1, 2018

Presumptive sentence lengths are in months. Italicized numbers within the grid denote the discretionary range
within which a court may sentence without the sentence being deemed a departure. Offenders with stayed felony
sentences may be subject to local confinement.
CRIMINAL HISTORY SCORE
SEVERITY LEVEL OF
CONVICTION OFFENSE 6 or
0 1 2 3 4 5
(Example offenses listed in italic) more

86 98 11 O 1 22 1 34 146 1 58
Agsgfisgfgeggzulg
’ Degree D9
74 *_ 103 84*_ 117 94*._ 132 104 *_ 146 714 *_ 160 125 *_ 175‘ 135 *_ 789
Manufacture o1'Any Am t. Meth
Controlled Substance Crime, ist 65 75 85 95 105 1 1 5 125
.

D8
Degree 56 *— 78 64*-90 73*- 702 81*~1 14 90*— 126 98*- 138 107*- 150

Controlled Substance Crime, 68 78 88 98 1 08

D7 ,

8
2nd Degree 5 8-8 1 6 7-93 75— 105 84—1 17 92- 129

Substance Crime, 3rd

39 45 51 57
Ctzretggélzd [)6
34-46 39 '54 44-67 49—68
Failure to Affix Stamp __

Possess Substances with intent 33 38 43 48

D5
to Manufacture Meth 29-39 33-45 37-5 1 4 1-5 7

Controlled Substance Crime, 4th 24 27 30

D4
Degree 21-28 23-32 26-36

Meth Crimes Involving Children 19 21 23

D3
and Vulnerable Adults 17-22 18—25 20—27

-
Controlled Substance Crime, 51h 21
D2 g
Degree 78—25

Sale of Simulated Controlled 1 9

D1 7
Substance 1 7-22

*
Lower range may not apply. See section 2.C.3.c(1) and Minn. Stat. § 152.021, subdivisions 3(c) 8L 3(d).
1
121=0ne year and one day

Presumptive co m m itm ent to state im p riso nment.

I —-vm Presumptive stayed sentence; 'at the discretion of the court, up to one year of confinement and other non-jail sanctions can
be imposed as conditions of probation. However, certain offenses in the shaded area of the Grid always carry a presumptive
A
commitment to state prison. See sections 2.C and 2.E.

26 Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission