Appeals Court: Prosecutors made plea deal then argued against it

Posted at 2:32 PM on May 23, 2011 by Bob Collins (3 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice

How much discretion does a Minnesota judge have to ignore minimum mandatory sentence rules? None, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled today.

The court today overturned a district court judge who sentenced Sarah DeAnn Rausch to 10 years probation, 15 days in the workhouse, and 45 in alternative service after she pleaded guilty to burglary charges stemming from a fight with her boyfriend.

But prosecutors said Rausch should have been sentenced to at least six months in the workhouse or prison as the Legislature mandates. The Appeals Court agreed, noting "courts have no inherent authority to impose terms or conditions of sentence for criminal acts and... the power to prescribe punishment for such acts rests with the legislature."

Her attorneys had argued that judges have the discretion to ignore mandatory sentencing guidelines, especially in cases where the charges are the first offense.

But there's a rub in this case. The same prosecutors who appealed that Rausch should have been sentenced to a minimum sentence, had also told her when it worked out a plea agreement that she could argue for a lighter one.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Jim Randall said this case is not what the Legislature had in mind when it created a minimum sentence for burglary. While he supported the Appeals Court ruling, he criticized prosecutors for bringing serious charges against a woman who "keyed" his car.

"The district court gave a thoughtful and fair sentence properly reflecting the facts of the crime," he said. "That carefully fashioned sentence reflected all that this case was worth."

Randall heavily criticized prosecutors for making a plea offer it knew it couldn't keep and urged Rausch to withdraw her guilty verdict plea when it goes back to the district court for resentencing.

---

Comments (3)

Use correct terminology: Randall urged her to withdraw her guilty plea, not a guilty verdict (which is only rendered by the fact finder after trial)

Posted by Kay | May 23, 2011 3:11 PM

---

Neither lawyers nor politicians are renowned for their consistency, integrity or compassion.

Posted by Jim Shapiro | May 23, 2011 9:15 PM

---

This has destroyed more than one life. Sarah is a single parent and this has had and will have a profound impact on her child. Not to mention others' influenced by these decisions. I should know, I'm the victim...
The prosecutor said to the judge: "He has buyer's remorse". I say who wouldn’t!

Posted by Jon | June 2, 2011 5:42 PM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories