State v. Mayl, Minn.Ct.App., 8/26/2013. For the second time, Mr. Mayl found himself facing a sentencing judge on a conviction of firearm possession by an ineligible person. Subdivision 8(b) of Minn. Stat. 609.11 says that the court must – do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars – execute the mandatory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment if the offender has a prior conviction in which the offender used or possessed a firearm.
Another statute, however, Minn.Stat. 609.1055, says that when a judge intends to send an offender with a serious and persistent mental illness to prison that judge may, instead, place the offender on probation. Mr. Mayl, no one disputed, has such a serious and persistent mental illness. Following his arrest he had put together a treatment plan with lots of community support to keep him working that plan. All of his community supporters – including his probation officer – also said that prison would be detrimental to Mr. Mayl’s treatment and overall well-being.
Mr. Mayl made numerous arguments to support his assertion that Minn.Stat. 609.1055 authorized the trial court to grant probation notwithstanding the separate prohibition contained over at 609.11, subdivision 8(b). 609.1055, for one thing, is a more specific statute than is 609.11. It’s a more recently enacted statute. Neither the trial court nor the court of appeals bought into these arguments. Each concluded that 609.1055 was nothing more than a statutorily enacted mitigating factor. Treated that way, then 609.1055 merely creates a basis for a departure from a presumptive prison sentence that the Guidelines would otherwise require. But, of course, that also means that a sentencing judge may ignore a mandatory sentencing statute, like 609.11, Subdivision 8(b), only when that statute permits it. It does not, so Mr. Mayl goes to prison.
No comments:
Post a Comment