State of Minnesota v. Brian Scott Schmitz
Minnesota Court of Appeals
State of Minnesota v. Brian Scott Schmitz
Opinion
This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A15-0823
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
vs.
Brian Scott Schmitz,
Appellant.
Filed June 6, 2016
Affirmed
Ross, Judge
Stearns County District Court
File No. 73-CR-13-9209
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Janelle P. Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, Michael J. Lieberg, Assistant County
Attorney, St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Veronica M. Surges, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Smith, Tracy,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ROSS, Judge
Brian Schmitz repeatedly sexually assaulted his girlfriend’s preteen daughter over
the course of several years. He pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree criminal sexual
conduct and then argued to the district court that his sentence should be stayed because he
is particularly amenable to probation. The district court instead imposed a presumptive
guidelines sentence. We affirm the sentence because the district court carefully considered
the relevant information before declining Schmitz’s request for a dispositional departure.
FACTS
The state charged Brian Schmitz in 2013 with two counts of first-degree criminal
sexual conduct and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct based on a report
that he sexually assaulted M.D., his then girlfriend’s 13-year-old daughter. Schmitz
allegedly touched M.D.’s genitals and forced her to touch his over several years when M.D.
was younger than 13. Schmitz pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree criminal sexual
conduct under Minnesota Statutes section 609.342, subdivision 1(a) (2012), and the state
agreed to drop the remaining charges and to allow him to argue for a downward departure.
Schmitz argued at sentencing that he was particularly amenable to probation
because, according to him, he posed a low risk to reoffend; he had himself been the victim
of sexual abuse; he suffered from a traumatic brain injury; and he was eager to participate
in chemical-dependency programming and sex-offender treatment, which would not be
immediately available if he were sent to prison. He apologized for his actions and
acknowledged that the offense was “a hundred percent” his fault.
The district court refused to order probation. It found that although Schmitz
seemingly progressed to acknowledge his crime, no substantial and compelling reason
supported a downward departure. The district court pointed out that Schmitz had abused
M.D. both when he was sober and when he was not and that he had an extensive criminal
2
history that indicated he posed a risk to public safety. The court also highlighted that
Schmitz had previously attempted to blame the child by saying that she “acted much older”
than she was. The district court issued the presumptive sentence of 144 months in prison
with a ten-year conditional-release term.
Schmitz appeals that sentence.
DECISION
Schmitz argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for a downward
dispositional departure. The district court is afforded “great discretion” in sentencing and
will be reversed only when it abuses that discretion. State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 307– 08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted). It may depart downward from a presumptive guidelines sentence only if mitigating circumstances constituting a substantial and compelling reason to depart are present.Id. at 308
; Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012). A downward dispositional departure in the form of a stayed sentence with probationary terms may be justified because of the “defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” State v. Trog,323 N.W.2d 28, 31
(Minn. 1982). In determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, the district court may consider a nonexclusive list of factors, including the defendant’s age, criminal record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in court, and the support of family or friends.Id.
Schmitz argues that his remorse, cooperation, and low risk to reoffend demonstrate
that he is particularly amenable to probation and that the district court should have stayed
the execution of his sentence. Even if Schmitz identified mitigating factors justifying a
downward departure from the presumptive sentence (and we are not convinced he has), the
3
district court was not required to depart. State v. Wall, 343 N.W.2d 22, 25(Minn. 1984). We will affirm a presumptive sentence “when the record shows that the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” State v. Johnson,831 N.W.2d 917, 925
(Minn. App. 2013) (quotation
omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept. 17, 2013). In denying Schmitz’s request for a
downward departure, the district court considered Schmitz’s psychosexual evaluation, the
PSI report, the victim-impact statement, arguments by counsel, and Schmitz’s statements
of remorse. Because the record informs us that the district court carefully took this
information into account, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Schmitz’s departure request.
Affirmed.
4
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished