Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines

• NCJ Number: 88829
• Journal: Hamline Law Review Volume: 5 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1982) Pages: 293-437
• Author(s): Anonymous
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 142 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article considers the legislative history of Minnesota's sentencing guidelines, their intent and operation, the State supreme court's interpretations of the guidelines, and how the Minnesota system compares with systems in five other States.

Abstract

The passage of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines was the culmination of a 3-year struggle characterized by procedural maneuvering, emotionalism, and misunderstanding. It began with the introduction of a tough mandatory sentencing bill, and support for the Guidelines bill was largely based on legislator misperception. The guidelines, which were developed by the State Sentencing Commission, constitute a presumptive sentencing scheme that requires the court to impose a particular sentence for the 'normal' offender but allows departure from the presumptive sentence if aggravating or mitigating circumstances exist. The purposes of the guidelines are to eliminate sentencing disparity resulting from judicial and prosecutorial discretion and to ensure that the sanctions imposed are proportionate to the severity of the offense. The guidelines are unique in their provision of extensive procedures for appellate review of criminal sentencing. Either the defendant or the State has the right to appeal to the State supreme court any sentence imposed or stayed. The first sentencing appeal demonstrated the supreme court's commitment to uphold the stipulations in the guidelines. Subsequent appeals have focused on such issues as what type of behavior satisfies the 'substantial and compelling circumstances' criteria that justifies departure from the presumptive sentence, whether the extent of departure is excessive, and which particular aspect of the guidelines is addressed (such as deviation for a major economic offense). The Minnesota system is compared with the systems in Arizona, California, Illinois, Indiana, and Maine. Extensive footnotes are provided for each section of the presentation.