State v. Smith, No. A06-824 (Minn. App. 4/10/2007)
| Decision Date | 10 April 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. A06-824.,A06-824. |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Chaka Smith, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the District Court, Hennepin County, File No. 01069845.
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, and Mike Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County Attorney, (for respondent)
Bradford Colbert, Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners, (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Lansing, Judge; and Worke, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Chaka Smith pleaded guilty in 2002 to second-degree felony murder. Based on a plea agreement, the district court imposed a 240-month sentence, which included an upward departure of 90 months. Almost four years after the sentence, Smith filed a petition for postconviction relief arguing that the upward departure was not justified and requesting the mid-range presumptive sentence of 150 months. The district court denied the petition. Because no aggravating factors justify a departure and the petition was not time-barred, we reverse and remand.
A Hennepin County grand jury indicted Chaka Smith (Smith) in 2001 for aiding and abetting the first-degree murder of Bobby Holder. Based on a plea bargain, Smith agreed to testify against his brother, Darnell Smith, and pleaded guilty to second-degree unintentional felony murder.
During the plea hearing, Smith described his role in the murder. When Smith finished work at about 10:30 p.m., he went to his brother's apartment. The brother informed Smith that Holder was coming to the apartment and that he wanted to "beat up" Holder. As his brother instructed, Smith made sure that nobody else arrived with Holder and then Smith hid in the bathroom. After his brother began to fight with Holder in a bedroom, Smith came out of hiding and blocked the bedroom door so that Holder could not get out. Smith's brother then shot Holder. As Holder begged for his life, Smith started to leave. Smith's brother shot Holder a second time. When his brother ordered Smith to help move the body, Smith refused. Smith did, however, bring him some buckets of water to clean the area where Holder was shot. Holder died as a result of the gunshot wounds. Smith testified that he did not provide any help or assistance to Holder while he was dying.
After the plea hearing, Smith testified against his brother and described his role in considerably more detail. See State v. Smith, 669 N.W.2d 19, 23-24 (Minn. 2003) (). Smith was then sentenced according to the plea bargain and received a 240-month sentence. The sentence was an upward departure from the presumptive mid-range sentence of 150 months. Minn. Sent. Guidelines IV (2000).
About seven months before the plea hearing, this court held in State v. Misquadace that a plea agreement, standing alone, is not a sufficient basis to depart from the sentencing guidelines. 629 N.W.2d 487, 491 (Minn. App. 2001). Seven weeks after Smith was sentenced, on May 9, 2002, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its decision in Misquadace and reached the same conclusion. State v. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65, 72 (Minn. 2002). Although Smith's upward departure was based only on the plea bargain, Smith did not appeal his conviction. Smith's time to appeal expired about five weeks after the supreme court's decision in Misquadace. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 4(3) ().
Smith's brother was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and that conviction was affirmed on appeal. Smith, 669 N.W.2d at 35. Tina Leja, who was the girlfriend of Smith's brother, was also tried and convicted for her role in the murder. State v. Leja, 684 N.W.2d 442, 443 (Minn. 2004). On appeal, Leja's sentence for second-degree felony murder was reduced by 60 months to the presumptive sentence of 150 months. Id. at 450. Leja had lured Holder into the bedroom where he was murdered and she helped dispose of the body. Id. at 444-46. The supreme court noted that Leja had not used her knowledge of where Holder's body was buried to bargain with authorities and had not herself acted with particular cruelty. Id.at 449. Based on these facts, the supreme court concluded that the district court had abused its discretion when it imposed an upward departure. Id.at 450.
Almost four years after Smith pleaded guilty and two years after the Leja decision, Smith filed a petition for postconviction relief. Smith argued that his upward sentencing departure was improper under Misquadace and that no other factors justified the departure. The district court agreed that Misquadace applied but concluded that the departure was justified because the crime was committed with particular cruelty and was committed by a group of three or more people who all actively participated. In addition, the district court concluded that the postconviction petition was not timely. The court therefore denied Smith's petition. Smith now appeals this denial.
Under State v. Misquadace, Smith's original sentence was unauthorized because the district court failed to provide a basis for the upward sentencing departure that explained how the offense was "any more or less serious than the typical offense or conviction." 644 N.W.2d 65, 71 (Minn. 2002). Because the district court relied only on the plea agreement to support the departure, it is invalid if Misquadace applies. Id. at 72.
Smith, the state, and the district court agree that Misquadace applies to Smith's sentence. The application of law to the sequence of events supports this conclusion. First, when Smith was sentenced, this court had already issued its decision in State v. Misquadace concluding that a plea agreement alone could not justify a departure. 629 N.W.2d 487, 491 (Minn. App. 2001). Second, by its own terms, Misquadace applies to "pending and future cases." 644 N.W.2d at 72. Because Smith's time to appeal had not expired, his case was pending at the time Misquadace was released. See State v. Lewis, 656 N.W.2d 535, 538 (Minn. 2003) (). Therefore, Smith's original sentence was invalid under Misquadace.
A sentencing departure will be affirmed despite inadequate reasons if "there is sufficient evidence in the record to justify the departure." State v. McIntosh, 641 N.W.2d 3, 8 (Minn. 2002) (quotation omitted). We review challenges to departures from the presumptive sentences in the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines under an abuse-of-discretion standard. State v. Thompson, 720 N.W.2d 820, 828 (Minn. 2006). A sentencing departure must be justified by substantial and compelling circumstances in the record. State v. Losh, 721 N.W.2d 886, 895 (Minn. 2006).
In reviewing a sentencing departure, we will defer to the district court's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous. Dukes v. State, 621 N.W.2d 246, 251 (Minn. 2001). Nonetheless, the district court's findings relating to "aggravating or mitigating circumstances justifying departure from the presumptive sentence must be present in the record." State v. Spain, 590 N.W.2d 85, 88 (Minn. 1999) (emphasis added). Similarly, in State v. Pearson, this court stated that the district court "may consider the defendant's admissions, statements and agreements contained in the negotiated plea." 479 N.W.2d 401, 405 (Minn. App. 1991) (emphasis added), review denied (Minn. Feb. 10, 1992). As a matter of due process, defendants must be able to challenge evidence used in sentencing proceedings. State v. Kortkamp, 560 N.W.2d 93, 96 (Minn. App. 1997). Therefore, the district court may not consider facts stated in the Smith and Leja decisions or statements made during trials of other participants in the murder.
The district court concluded that the upward departure was justified because Smith committed the crime with particular cruelty. The court stated:
First, Petitioner prevented Holder from leaving the room where he was being assaulted. In doing this, Petitioner likely exponentially increased the terror Holder must have been experiencing. He also deprived Holder of any opportunity of escaping the encounter. Second, Petitioner ignored Holder's pleas for mercy and failed to offer the medical attention Holder begged for and required. Third, Petitioner participated in dismembering Holder's body. Fourth, Petitioner attempted to conceal the crime by cleaning the scene of the murder and removing Holder's car from the vicinity of the murder.
The companion cases to Smith's prosecution provide evidence that could be used to support these findings. Leja, 684 N.W.2d at 445-46; Smith, 669 N.W.2d at 23-25. The record in Smith's case, which is essentially the transcript for Smith's plea, does not support these findings. The only evidence that Smith concealed the crime was his statement that he brought his brother "some buckets of water." No evidence in the plea transcript supports the findings that Smith moved Holder's car or dismembered Holder's body. Although Smith admitted that he did not provide any assistance to Holder, the record does not indicate that Smith had any realistic opportunity to assist him.
More importantly, we conclude that the law applied to the facts in the record does not support a determination that Smith acted with particular cruelty when he prevented Holder from leaving the room. Smith was indicted for aiding and abetting the intentional murder of Holder "while committing or attempting to commit the crime of kidnapping." Similarly, Smith's plea to second-degree unintentional felony murder was on an underlying offense of kidnapping. Because confinement was part of the charged offense, Smith's act of preventing Holder from leaving the room...
To continue reading
Request your trial