§ 609.107

State v. Bluhm · 2003 1 citation

When the legislature wishes to restrict judicial discretion, it selects language that leaves no doubt. E.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 609.107 (excluding judicial discretion in sentencing certain murders if defendant was previously convicted of a heinous crime); .109 (specifically excluding judicial discretion for certain repeat sex offender cases); .11, subd. 5 (2002) (removing judicial discretion for certain offenses committed while in possession of a firearm). For example, in State v. Moose, 266 N.W.2d 521 (Minn.1978), the Minnesota Supreme Court examined whether an earlier version of Minn. Stat. § 609.11 barred the court from considering probation. The court held the 1976 version of Minn. Stat. § 609.11 did not prohibit the district court from considering probation under Minn. Stat. § 609.135. Id. at 525-26. In 1977, the legislature responded by amending Minn. Stat. § 609.135 to specifically bar probation in cases covered by Minn. Stat. § 609.11. 1977 Minn. Laws ch. 349, § 1; State v. Jonason, 292 N.W.2d 730, 733 (Minn.1980) (recognizing the amendment to Minn. Stat. § 609.135 conclusively eliminated judicial discretion in sentencing un *30 der Minn. Stat. § 609.11). In this case, some 22 years after Childers, the legislature has not amended Minn. Stat. § 609.135 to exclude judicial discretion in sentencing controlled-substance offenders.