State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (201 8).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-1774

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Dean Robert Minnerath,
Appellant.

Filed June 15, 2020
Affirmed
Frisch, Judge

Becker County District Court
File No. 03-CR-17-2059

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Brian W. McDonald, Becker County Attorney, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sara L. Mart in, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and Frisch,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
FRISCH, Judge
Following his conviction of first-degree assault, appellant argues that the distric t
court abused its discretion by i mposing a sentence at the top of the presumptive range as
opposed to a sentence at the bottom of the presumptive range. W e affirm.
FACTS
In September 2017, a ppellant Dean Robert Minnerath threatened patrons at a bar.
Minnerath left the bar before police arrived. Police later located Minnerath and attempted
to stop his vehicle. Minnerath did not comply with orders to stop and fled police.
A high-speed chase ensued, spanning over 12 miles. The chase ended only afte r
Minnerath’s vehicle hit stop sticks deployed by police. Minnerath then exited his vehicle
with a loaded assault rifle and aimed the weapon at police. Officers fired at Minnerath,
striking him eight times. Upon investigation, law enforcement discovered a live round of
ammunition jammed in the chamber of the assault rifle.
The state charged Minnerath with (1) first-degree assault—use or attempted use of
deadly force against a peace officer, (2) second -degree assault, (3) prohibited person in
possession of a firearm, and (4) fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle.
On June 24, 2019, Minnerath entered a Norgaard guilty plea to first-degree assault ,
without a n agreement as to sentencing.1 At the plea hearing, Minnerath stated that he

1 “A defendant enters a Norgaard plea if he claims a loss of memory, through amnesia or
intoxication, regarding the circumstances of the offense but the record establishes that the
defendant is guilty or likely to be convicted of the crime charged.” State v. Johnson, 867

3
started drinking w hen he arrived at the bar, that he did not recall how much alcohol he
consumed, that he remembered leaving a gas station before arriving at the bar , and that the
next thing he remembered was waking up in Fargo. Although Minnerath testified at the
plea hea ring that he did not recall any other events regarding the incident, Minnerath
described details of the incident to his wife during a phone call from jail, specifically telling
his wife that he took the assault rifle out of the car because he “wasn’t gonna leave it” and
that he did not point the rifle at a certain officer who responded to the scene.
Minnerath faced a prison sentence in the range between 135 and 189 months given
his criminal history and the offense to which he ple aded guilty. The presentence
investigation report recommended that the district court sentence Minnerath at the midpoint
of the presumptive range , or 158 months in prison. The district court imposed the
maximum presumptive sentence, 189 months. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Minnerath challenges the decision by the district court to impose a top -of-the-box
guidelines sentence rather than a bottom-of-the-box guidelines sentence.
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines establish the presumptive sentences for
felony offenses. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.C ( Supp. 2017). The guidelines set forth that
the presumptive sentence is “presumed to be appropriate for all typical cases sharing
criminal history and offense severity characteristics.” Minn. Sent. Guidelines 1.B.13
(Supp. 2017 ). “ All three numbers in any given cell [on the sentencing guidelines grid]

N.W.2d 210, 215 (Minn. App. 2015) (quotations omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept. 29,
2015); see also State ex rel. Norgaard v. Tahash , 110 N.W.2d 867, 871 -72 (Minn. 1961).

4
constitute an acceptable sentence based solely on the of fense at issue and the offender’ s
criminal history score —the lowest is not a downward departure, nor is the highest an
upward departure.” State v. Jackson , 749 N.W.2d 353, 359 n.2 (Minn. 2008) . We
“generally will not interfere with sentences that are within the presumptive sentence
range.” State v. Freyer , 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn. 1982) . Although we may, in our
discretion, modify a sentence that is within the presumptive range, we “generally will not
exercise that authority absent compelling circumstances.” Id. “Only in a ‘rare’ case will a
reviewing court reverse imposition of a presumptive sentence.” State v. Delk, 781 N.W.2d
426, 428 (Minn. App. 2010) (quoting State v. Kindem , 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981) ),
review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).
Minnerath argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider
mitigating circumstances associated with his request to be sentenced at the bottom of the
presumptive range. Minnerath asserts that he is entitled to a lower sentence because he is
57 years old; his mental-health condition caused his attempted suicide by inducing officers
to shoot him ; and therefore, he claims, “there are mitigating factors that amount to
compelling circumstances that render the maximum presumptive sentence unreasonab le . ”
At the sentencing hearing, both Minnerath and his counsel reiterated these and other
arguments in support of the request for a lower sentence.
The district court expressly considered all of these arguments before exercising its
discretion to impose the maximum sentence allowable under the guidelines. The district
court explained:

5
I have reviewed everything in this file, including the pre-
sentence investigation [report recommending the presumptive
sentence of 158 months], your dispositional advisor’s
memorandum in support of your sentencing request [for the
minimum guidelines sentence of 135 months], the two separate
squad videos capturing the events on September 28th of 2017,
the jail phone call made on June 6th of 2019, and I relistened
to your plea hearing on June 24th.
Mr. Minnerath, you were released from prison on
March 19 th of 2019 and six months later, w hile still on
probation, you ended up at [a bar] drinking to the point that you
claim it affects your memory of what occurred that evening,
together with the injuries that you sustained as a result of what
happened that day.
When law enforcement was called to investigate alleged
threats that you had made to patrons of the bar, you led them
on a high speed chase. Speeds were up to 95 miles per hour
over a distance of approximately 12 miles. You passed 27 cars
during that c hase as you fled at high speeds. When you
stopped, you . . . armed yourself with a loaded rifle . You
attempted to point it at the officers. You are a person who is
prohibited from possessing a firearm. You pu t many lives in
danger that day, not only th e occupants of those 27 vehicles
that you passed at high rates of speed, but also the officers who
encountered you when you stopped.
As to your remorse, I believe that you do have remorse
here today, although I have to say that I’m—I do question prior
to your plea [t] he phone call that you made on June 6th, just
two weeks prior to your plea, seemed to show a different
version of what you actually do remember that evening as to
what you said at your plea [hearing]. . . . [N]owhere on that call
did I hear you say, “I d on’t really remember what happen ed
. . . .” I’m taking that into consideration.
I’m also taking into consideration not only the factors
that I’ve just outlined here today, but also the fact that you have
a lengthy criminal history, including violence related offenses.
In fact, t his is your eighth felony offense within seven
years. . . . [Y]ou are . . . a danger to the public , which is the
reason I’m imposing the sentence that I’m going to .

6
The record shows that the district court carefully con sidered all arguments and evidence
submitted by Minnerath in support of his request for a sentence at the bottom of the
guidelines range and determined that a top-of-the-box sentence was more appropriate under
the circumstances. The district court acted w ell within its sentencing discretion.
Affirmed.