State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“this is not that rare case where we interfere with the exercise of discretion, but a case where the exercise of discretion has not occurred.”
88 citation events (84 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ricky Darnell Waiters, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent (minn, 2024-12-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#12 Minn. Stat. § 609.582 cited 1× in this case · 230 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Ricky Darnell Waiters, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent
Minn. · 2024 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
this is not that rare case where we interfere with the exercise of discretion, but a case where the exercise of discretion has not occurred.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Irineo Ricardo-Cosme
Minn. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
In Mendoza, we remanded the district court’s denial of a dispositional departure because the district court improperly considered Mendoza’s immigration status during 2 Cosme cites the following opinions: State v. Warren, 592 N.W.2d 440, 452 (Minn. 1999); State v. Mendoza, 638 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn. App. 2002), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2002); State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984). 8 sentencing. 638 N.W.2d at 486 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. John Chester Hageman, Jr.
Minn. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Catherine Ann Skavlem-Short (10×) also: Cited "see"
Minn. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
She relies on this court’s opinion in State v. Curtiss in which we remanded for reconsideration after concluding that the district court had not considered all relevant mitigating factors. 353 N.W.2d 262, 263-64 (Minn. App. 1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Dennis Ervin Carter
Minn. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251, 254 (Minn. App. 2011) (noting that if a district court considers the reasons for departure but chooses not to depart, an explanation is not required); State v. Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d 77, 80 (Minn. App. 1985); State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 263 (Minn. App. 1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Dimitri Devonte Harrell
Minn. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker
Minn. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. 1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden
Minn. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Hope Marie Carlson
Minn. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
See State v. Mendoza, 638 N.W.2d 480, 484 (Minn. App. 2002) (remanding “[b]ecause we cannot conclude from the record that the district court made a deliberate decision to impose presumptive sentences by weighing reasons for and against departure”), review denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2002); State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984) (remanding because the district court “erred in putting aside arguments for departure rather than considering them”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Robert Richard Doble
Minn. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lee Goettig
Minn. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr.
Minn. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1 If an offense carries a mandatory minimum sentence, the presumptive sentence is the longer of either the mandatory minimum or the guidelines sentence.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang
Minn. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. David John Ojeda (2×) also: Cited "see"
Minn. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
He cites State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984), for the proposition that, when compelling circumstances for a departure exist, the district court 3 must deliberately consider them before imposing the presumptive sentence.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb
Minn. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. LaQuinn Jamul Williams
Minn. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
See State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982) (listing amenability to probation as among factors that may justify a downward departure); State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984) (requiring the district court to “deliberately consider[]” mitigating factors before rejecting a motion for a downward departure).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Tyrece Curtis Matthews
Minn. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984) (holding that district court erred by ignoring arguments for departure).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Tawnja Rene Wallace
Minn. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski
Minn. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Johnson
Minn. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn.App.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Weaver
Minn. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
But in exercising its sentencing discretion, the district court “must consider circumstances supporting a downward durational departure from the presumptive sentence.” State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 262, 263 (Minn.App.1984) (remanding for reconsideration of defendant’s request for downward departure where the district court erred in failing to consider “legitimate” and “significant” reasons for departure).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Abrahamson
Minn. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
While it is true that a district court errs when it fails to consider valid departure factors, State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 263-64 (Minn.App.1984), in this case, the district court explicitly addressed the reasons for a dis-positional departure before exercising its discretion to deny the departure.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Kier
Minn. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 263 (Minn.App.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Bendzula
Minn. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
This judicial determination will “avoid sentencing that is either mechanical or callous.” State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn.App.1984).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Mendoza (4×) also: Cited "see"
Minn. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn.App.1984); see State v. Spain, 590 N.W.2d 85, 88 (Minn.1999) (stating that a sentencing court has no discretion to depart from sentencing guidelines unless mitigating or aggravating factors are present).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. McKissic
Minn. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Although Kindem left the question open, a review of the case law reveals only one case in which an appellate court disturbed a presumptive sentence: State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 263-64 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (remanded for failure to consider reasons for departure).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Cameron
Minn. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
The existence of circumstances permitting departure is a “threshold question.” State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 263 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).
cited Cited "see" State of Minnesota v. Dayonne Marquis Lachapelle
Minn. Ct. App. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984) (remanding when the district court failed to exercise discretion).
examined Cited "see" Larry Jonnell Gilbert v. State of Minnesota, A21-1560, Supreme Court, January 17, 2024 (4×)
Minn. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. DeLaCruz, 884 N.W.2d 878, 888 (Minn. App. 2016) (citing State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984)); State v. Mendoza, 638 N.W.2d 480, 484 (Minn. App. 2002), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2002). 7 district court’s conclusion about a dispositive procedural issue when the district court offers no reasoning that could support such an implied determination.
discussed Cited "see" State of Minnesota v. Daniel David Ojanen
Minn. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984) (stating that a district court must deliberately consider a defendant’s arguments for departure).
discussed Cited "see" State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde
Minn. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 263 (Minn. App. 1984) (stating that “a written explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence”).
discussed Cited "see" State v. O'BRIEN (2×)
Minn. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn.Ct.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Sagataw
Minn. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Pechovnik v. Pechovnik, 765 N.W.2d 94, 98-99 (Minn. App. 2009) (stating misapplication of the law is an abuse of discretion); see also State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984) (remanding to district court because district court failed to exercise discretion when it, without considering all relevant factors, stated “there [was] no justifiable reason to deviate” from the presumptive sentence).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Pegel
Minn. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“If the district court has discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence, it must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” State v. Mendoza, 638 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn.App.2002), review denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2002); see also State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn.App.1984) (noting that record suggested factors for departure that should be deliberately considered).
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Christopher Paul CURTISS, Appellant
C7-84-1056.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
Aug 21, 1984.
353 N.W.2d 262
Hubert H. Humphrey, III State Atty. Gen., St. Paul, R. Kathleen Morris, Scott County Atty., Patricia M. Buss Asst. Scott County Atty., Shakopee, for respondent., C. Paul Jones, Minnesota State Public Defender, Susan K. Maki Asst. State Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Popovich, Parker, Crippen.
Cited by 45 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

CRIPPEN, Judge.

Appellant Christopher Paul Curtiss was sentenced to 33 months in prison after pleading guilty to burglary. This sentence was at the lower end of the presumptive sentence under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal he claims the trial court erred in not departing downward du-rationally. We remand.

FACTS

While on probation, appellant entered a breezeway attached to a house and removed a case of beer. He was arrested shortly thereafter. Appellant pleaded guilty to burglary, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.582(l)(a) (Supp.1983).

At sentencing, the trial court denied appellant’s request to depart downward dura-tionally and impose only an 18 month sentence. After saying that there were no legitimate reasons for departure, the trial court imposed and executed a 33 month sentence, which was at the lower end of the 33-35 month range of the presumptive sentence under the guidelines.

ISSUE

Did the trial judge err in failing to consider reasons for departure from the presumptive sentence?

ANALYSIS

Presumptive sentences are to be applied “with a high degree of regularity.” Comment II.D.03, Minn. Sentencing Guidelines. Only if the trial court finds substantial and compelling circumstances to depart can it do so. State v. Garcia, N.W.2d 643 (Minn.1981); Sec. II.D, Sentencing Guidelines.

If departure is permissible due to compelling circumstances, the trial court “may” depart. On that choice it has “broad” discretion and an appellate court will “generally” not interfere. State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn.1981).

In the Kindem case the Minnesota Supreme Court observed its belief that “it would be a rare case which would warrant a reversal of the refusal to depart.” Id. at 7. In that case the court affirmed non-departure due to its observation that there were “valid reasons” for non-departure as well as arguments for a downward departure. The trial court must explain in writing a decision to depart, but a written explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence. Sec. II.D, Sentencing Guidelines; Rule 27.-03(4)(C), Minn.R.Crim.P.

The threshold question is whether the case involves compelling circumstances for departure. Here the trial court-found that it did not, that “there is no justifiable reason to deviate.” Thus, the departure topic was abandoned before the trial court exercised its broad discretion, comparing reasons for and against departure.

The information before the trial court does not sustain its finding. Legitimate reasons for departure did exist. In fact, they were significant. The defendant was 18 years of age. He faced his first sentence to an adult correctional facility. His offense involved taking 16 bottles of beer from the breezeway of an occupied house, without other intrusion, barely within the scope of the serious charge of burglary in the first degree. His prior felony involved driving an older model pickup until it was out of gas. The trial judge noted: “I personally feel ... that 34 [sic] months may be too much.”

There are other factors to be considered in the case, some of them supporting non-departure. The defendant had been adjudi[*264] cated on four acts of delinquency and had spent time in the state training school for juveniles. His prior felony offense occurred four months before the current unlawful act. His offense occurred within an hour after a telephone contact with his probation officer. The defendant has a serious alcohol problem which requires treatment.

The record suggests factors for departure which should be deliberately considered. The court erred in putting aside arguments for departure rather than considering them alongside “valid reasons” for non-departure. State v. Kindem, Id. This is not that rare case where we interfere with the exercise of discretion, but a case where the exercise of discretion has not occurred. Consideration of compelling circumstances is central to the scheme of the sentencing guidelines, and the practice will avoid sentencing that is either mechanical or callous.

DECISION

The matter must be remanded for a hearing on sentencing and for reconsideration of the departure question.

Remanded for resentencing.