State v. Luepke
| Decision Date | 27 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | A22-0110 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Matthew Warren Luepke, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
Nicollet County District Court File No. 52-CR-18-545.
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Michelle Zehnder Fischer, Nicollet County Attorney, St. Peter Minnesota; and Scott A. Hersey, Special Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant).
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Kathryn J. Lockwood, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent).
Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Slieter, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.
The state appeals the district court's sentence imposing a downward durational departure from the mandatory-minimum sentence following respondent's conviction of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person. We reverse and remand for imposition of a guidelines sentence.
In December 2018, appellant State of Minnesota charged respondent Matthew Warren Luepke with illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2) (2018). The complaint contained allegations that lawenforcement officers found Luepke barricaded in his grandmother's basement and that a rifle and ammunition were on the ground near where it appeared Luepke had been sleeping. A review of Luepke's criminal record revealed that he had been previously convicted of at least one crime of violence and that he was ineligible to possess a firearm.
Luepke was released from custody pending trial. After his release and while the charges were pending, Luepke had multiple interactions with law enforcement after allegedly abusing his Adderall prescription. Luepke's counsel requested a competency evaluation, alleging that Luepke could not assist counsel with his defense. The district court ordered a competency evaluation pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01.
Luepke refused to participate in the Rule 20 evaluation. The district court thereafter ordered the examiner to prepare a report with available information, including Luepke's medical and corrections records. The examiner prepared a report based on the records and her brief interaction with Luepke, and the district court summarized those findings. The district court specifically noted that Luepke did not present with symptoms consistent with an affective or psychotic disorder, his most recent presentation and behaviors align with substance-induced behavior, and the examiner did not believe Luepke suffered from a cognitive disorder.
In July 2019, the district court found Luepke not competent to proceed because Luepke could not consult with counsel due to a "mental illness [or] disorder [Luepke] [was] currently experiencing." (Emphasis added.) In June 2020, in a separate matter, the state sought another competency evaluation, and the evaluator concluded that Luepke was competent to stand trial. The state provided a copy of the Rule 20 report to the district court in this matter, which in turn found that Luepke's condition had improved, he was no longer abusing substances, and he was not suffering from a mental illness. The district court then found Luepke competent to proceed.
On October 5, 2021, the district court held a bench trial and issued the following uncontested findings of fact.[1] On December 30, 2018, law-enforcement officers were looking for Luepke following reports that he was involved in a domestic assault. The officers located Luepke at his grandmother's house where he had locked himself inside her basement. After the officers entered the basement room, they found a makeshift bed on the floor adjacent to a loaded rifle and ammunition. The district court noted that Luepke had been found guilty of a controlled-substance crime in 2012, that he had been put on a 25-year term of probation, and that the conviction constitutes a crime of violence. The district court found Luepke guilty of illegally possessing firearms or ammunition.[2]
On October 27, 2021, the district court received information that Luepke did not cooperate in the preparation of a presentence investigation (PSI) report. Luepke refused to meet with the investigating agent. The agent reported that Luepke told the agent, "I am so sick of you little b-tches in probation . . . I ain't meeting with you, you can go f--k yourself and take your papers and shove them up your a-s." Luepke also sent several letters directly to the district court, including one stating that he would not be "going back to court for any more bull sh-t f--kin head games."
On November 8, 2021, the district court held a sentencing hearing. Luepke originally refused to attend but later appeared and told the court: The district court then sua sponte indicated that it was considering imposing a downward departure of unspecified nature from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and invited the state and Luepke to comment on a potential sentencing departure. The state opposed any departure, citing both the seriousness of the offense and Luepke's demonstrated rejection of probationary services. The state also highlighted Luepke's recent escalation of troubling activity as presenting a significant public-safety risk, citing multiple probation violations and violations of pretrial release conditions, a domestic-assault guilty verdict, a fourth-degree assault guilty verdict related to Luepke fighting with law-enforcement officers, and, while awaiting sentencing for the assault, being found by law enforcement driving without a license and in possession of alcohol. Luepke repeatedly interrupted the state's sentencing argument with profane diatribes, again claiming that the district court told him that he would not be sentenced to probation. After the state presented its argument, Luepke's counsel requested that the district court sentence Luepke to probation or impose a durational departure of 36 months' imprisonment.
After hearing from both parties, the district court noted the statutory mandatory-minimum sentence of 60 months' imprisonment but stated that it had the authority to depart from that sentence if it found substantial and compelling reasons to do so. The district court then found that Luepke's mental health was "substantially impaired at the time the offense occurred, around that period of time." It also noted that the underlying crime of violence that rendered Luepke ineligible to possess a firearm occurred "over ten years ago" and that Luepke was not the sort of defendant that the "five year mandatory minimum was designed to apply to." The district court also found that the same reasons justifying a durational departure also supported not placing Luepke on probation. The district court then sentenced Luepke to 365 days in custody, with credit for time served, representing a durational departure from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. The district court later completed a sentencing worksheet, noting that the sentence imposed constituted a downward durational departure because Luepke "lacked substantial capacity for judgment (not drug/alc)."
The state appeals.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing a gross-misdemeanor sentence for Luepke's conviction for illegal possession of a firearm under Minnesota Statutes section 624.713 subdivision 1(2), a crime which carries a mandatory-minimum prison term of 60 months. Minn. Stat. § 609.11, subd. 5(b) (2018). That statute provides that a district court may depart from that mandatory sentence if it identifies "substantial and compelling reasons to do so." Id., subd. 8(a) (2018).
"A durational departure must be based on factors that reflect the seriousness of the offense, not the characteristics of the offender." State v. Solberg, 882 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Minn. 2016) (emphasis omitted). District courts have great discretion when imposing sentences, and we reverse sentencing decisions only when a district court abuses that discretion. State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014). A district court abuses its discretion if its reasons for departing are "improper or insufficient and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure." Id. at 308 (quotations omitted). "When the district court gives improper or inadequate reasons for a downward departure, we may scrutinize the record to determine whether alternative grounds support the departure." Solberg, 882 N.W.2d at 623 (emphasis omitted). If the record contains insufficient evidence to justify a departure, we must reverse. Williams v. State, 361 N.W.2d 840, 844 (Minn. 1985).
A downward departure is justified if a mental impairment caused the offender to lack a substantial capacity for judgment when the offense was committed. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.203.3.a(3) (2018); State v. Martinson, 671 N.W.2d 887, 891 (Minn.App. 2003). To support a downward departure on the basis of mental impairment, the impairment must be "extreme" and deprive the defendant "of control over his actions." State v McLaughlin, 725 N.W.2d 703, 716 (Minn. 2007); see also State v. Wilson, 539 N.W.2d 241, 247 (Minn. 1995); State v. Lee, 491 N.W.2d 895, 902 (Minn. 1992). Although we review the district court's decision to grant a departure for an abuse of discretion, we review whether the district court's reason for a departure was proper under a de novo standard of review. Dillon v. State, 781 N.W.2d 588, 595 (Minn.App. 2010), rev. denied (Minn. July 20,...
To continue reading
Request your trial