State v. Cameron
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2011, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- State v. Pegel (Minn. Ct. App. 2011)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION
On a guilty plea, appellant was convicted of burglary in the second degree, Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 2 (1984). In March 1985, the trial court committed appellant to imprisonment for a term of 46 months, the sentence prescribed under state guidelines on a severity level V offense for a defendant with a criminal history score of five. At the time of sentencing, appellant said he would like to be put on probation, because he knew what his problems were. He appeals the sentence and we affirm.
FACTS
A probation officer’s sentencing report said that appellant is chemically dependent and was experiencing psychiatric problems. Appellant’s attorney said that he should have treatment for emotional and mental problems.
Appellant had three prior felony convictions and was incarcerated at St. Cloud reformatory in 1982 and in 1984. He was released in November 1984, and was on parole at the time of his present offense. He had been on probation several times, and in the past he had consistently refused to accept treatment services for chemical dependency or psychological problems.
ISSUE
Did the trial court err in refusing a dis-positional sentencing departure?
DECISION
If the trial court finds an offense involves “substantial and compelling circumstances,” it has authority to depart from a presumptive sentence. State v. Garcia, 302 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 1981); Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.D; Minn.R. Crim.P. 27.03, subd. 4(C). The substantial and compelling circumstances which justify a dispositional departure, a stay of sentence, include a finding that the defendant is particularly amenable to correction or probation and unamenable to correction by imprisonment. State v. Heywood, 338 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 1983).
Until it is found that circumstances would permit a dispositional departure, the trial court cannot exercise its discretion to decide whether a departure is appropriate. The existence of circumstances permitting departure is a “threshold question.” State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 263 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984).
Here there was no showing of compelling circumstances for departure. There was no evidence, not even argument, to suggest that appellant would use treatment services if sentence were stayed, or that he was in any way amenable to probationary supervision. The record indicates that treatment services will be available for defendant during his incarceration.
The trial court could not properly consider a dispositional departure, and the court correctly elected not to do so.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.