State of Minnesota v. Catherine Ann Skavlem-Short

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A23-0167

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Catherine Ann Skavlem-Short,
Appellant.

Filed November 13, 2023
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Polk County District Court
File No. 60-CR-20-1252

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

Greg Widseth, Polk County Attorney, Scott A. Buhler, Assistant Polk County Attorney,
Crookston, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Michael McLaughlin, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Ross, Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

WORKE, Judge

In this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction for felony first-degree driving

while impaired (DWI), appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by

denying her motion for a downward dispositional sentencing departure. We affirm.
 FACTS

Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Catherine Ann Skavlem-Short

with first-degree DWI in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 169A.20, subdivision 1(5)

(2020), based on allegations that on July 30, 2020, she drove her car with an alcohol

concentration of 0.17. She entered a guilty plea to the charge with no agreement as to

sentencing.

Skavlem-Short filed a motion for a downward dispositional departure. She argued

that she was particularly amenable to probation based on her long history of sobriety and

her participation and work in the chemical-dependency field. She also argued that she was

particularly unamenable to incarceration due to her medical conditions.

The district court conducted a sentencing hearing in November 2022.

Skavlem-Short’s attorney explained that Skavlem-Short’s medical condition had worsened

and that she will require more frequent treatments going forward. She further argued that

for the past two and a half years, Skavlem-Short has had frequent breathalyzer monitoring

and has not had a positive test. Skavlem-Short also completed a chemical-dependency

assessment, which indicated that she was a low risk and did not need any specific treatment

setting.

The state opposed the motion and advocated for a top-of-the-box sentence of 72

months. See Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 4.A (2020). The state argued that there was nothing

in the record from a medical professional indicating that Skavlem-Short cannot be

incarcerated with her medical conditions. It stated that this was her fourth felony DWI

since 2007 and her seventh DWI since 2003. The state noted that Skavlem-Short “was

2
more than twice the legal limit here” and she tried to drive away twice and physically

resisted the officer’s attempt to remove the key. The state argued that “when someone’s

driving all the way from Fargo . . . to Lake Park and then up to Crookston and doesn’t even

know where they are, they’re placing lots of people at risk.” It contended that

Skavlem-Short is a “very high risk” to public safety. It further argued that because the

sentencing guidelines indicate a presumptive commit for a second felony DWI, “when

you’re on your fourth . . . felony DWI, and your seventh one in 19 years . . . that the [c]ourt

should not only impose what the guidelines presume . . . but that you should go to the top

of the box.” Finally, the state argued that “[i]t isn’t a chemical dependency issue, as

apparently the [chemical dependency assessment] points out” and that this was a “bad

decision issue.”

The district court then heard from Skavlem-Short, who testified to her remorse and

health problems, and from her sister, who spoke about supporting Skavlem-Short. The

district court stated that it had reviewed the presentence investigation report (PSI), the

sentencing worksheet, and the dispositional-departure motion and the accompanying

submissions. It recognized that “these are certainly difficult decisions for the [c]ourt to

make.” The district court denied the motion for a downward dispositional departure,

stating:

I’m certainly not minimizing the struggles of Ms.
Skavlem-Short with alcohol or her medical issues. And I’m
certainly pleased to hear that she’s not the same person that did
this offense. However, when we get to the point of having four
felony DWI’s, it doesn’t leave the [c]ourt with much discretion
in terms of sentencing, nor should it. There certainly are

3
 significant community safety issues that were involved in this
offense.

And . . . I’m not minimizing the struggles, I’m not
minimizing the medical, but the fourth felony DWI for
someone who at least says that they don’t need treatment, and
I’m not arguing with the fact that you don’t need treatment, but
there again, it’s a fourth felony DWI in this circumstance.

The range of sentence I’m certainly not going to find
that you’re amenable to probation, Ms. Skavlem-Short, with
that fourth felony DWI.

It then recognized that the state’s argument for a top-of-the-box sentence of 72 months was

reasonable for a fourth felony DWI but that the PSI recommended a bottom-of-the-box

sentence of 51 months. The district court further noted that Skavlem-Short had taken

responsibility, and that it took “into consideration [her] struggles and issues with medical

care,” when it sentenced her to a bottom-of-the-box sentence of 51 months in prison. This

appeal followed.

DECISION

Skavlem-Short argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying her

request for a downward dispositional departure. She requests this court reverse her

sentence and impose a probationary sentence or, in the alternative, reverse and remand for

resentencing.

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines establish presumptive sentences to “maintain

uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing.” Minn. Stat.

§ 244.09, subd. 5 (2020). A sentencing court “must pronounce a sentence within the

applicable range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances”

4
that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.

State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 308 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted); Minn. Sent’g

Guidelines 2.D.1 cmt. 2.D.103 (2020). Accordingly, a district court may depart from the

sentencing guidelines “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, and

those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines

sentence.” Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 308 (emphasis omitted) (quotations and citations omitted);

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020). But even if substantial and compelling

circumstances are present, a district court is not required to depart from the guidelines.

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1; State v. Walker, 913 N.W.2d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018);

see, e.g., State v. Wall, 343 N.W.2d 22, 25 (Minn. 1984).

A downward dispositional departure is generally based on characteristics of the

defendant showing that the defendant is particularly amenable to probation. State v.

Solberg, 882 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Minn. 2016). Particular amenability to probation may

constitute a substantial and compelling reason for a downward dispositional departure. Id.

The supreme court has recognized that several factors may be relevant to a district court’s

determination of whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, “including the

defendant’s age, h[er] prior record, h[er] remorse, h[er] cooperation, h[er] attitude while in

court, and the support of friends and/or family.” State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn.

1982). These factors are commonly known as the Trog factors. See State v. Pegel, 795

N.W.2d 251, 253 (Minn. App. 2011).

District courts are afforded a great deal of discretion in the imposition of sentences,

and appellate courts review for an abuse of that discretion. Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 307-08.

5
A “reviewing court may not interfere with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion, as

long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and

information presented before making a determination.” Pegel, 795 N.W.2d at 255

(quotation omitted). Thus, we will reverse the district court’s refusal to depart from a

presumptive sentence only in a “rare” case. Id. at 253.

Skavlem-Short’s argument has two parts. First, she argues that the district court

abused its discretion by not exercising its discretion in denying her request for a

dispositional departure. She contends that the district court failed to consider the factors

in favor of departure and instead focused on the fact that this offense was her fourth felony

DWI since 2007 and her seventh DWI since 2003. 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).

This case is distinguished from Curtiss. In Curtiss, we remanded for

reconsideration after determining that the district court had “abandoned” the possibility of

a downward dispositional departure without “comparing reasons for and against.” Id.

There, this court concluded that an exercise of discretion had not occurred. Id. at 264; see

also State v. Mendoza, 638 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn. App. 2002) (remanding for

resentencing where the district court did not appear to exercise any discretion in denying a

departure motion), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2002). In contrast, here, the district court

considered all of the arguments and facts that were raised both for and against a departure.

See Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d at 264 (explaining that if the district court has discretion to depart

6
from a presumptive sentence, it must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering

circumstances for and against departure).

Contrary to her contentions, the district court expressly discussed the factors

Skavlem-Short raised, including her medical issues, her sobriety and treatment options, her

remorse, and her criminal history. In fact, the district court expressly recognized Skavlem-

Short’s “struggles and issues with medical care” when it imposed a bottom-of-the box

sentence of 51 months, despite the state’s request for a top-of-the-box sentence of 72

months. Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 4.A. Thus, the record shows that the district court did

consider the mitigating factors that might support a departure but determined that they did

not provide substantial and compelling reasons for a departure.

Second, Skavlem-Short contends that the district court’s statement that her criminal

history “doesn’t leave the [c]ourt with much discretion in terms of sentencing” indicates

that the district court believed it lacked the discretion to grant a departure in this case.

Thus, she argues that the district court abused its discretion by basing its decision on the

incorrect premise that a departure was not permissible in this case.

In response, the state argues that the district court understood that it had discretion

in considering the arguments and evidence for and against departure, and ultimately,

whether to grant or deny a departure. We agree. Before imposing her sentence, the district

court recognized Skavlem-Short’s struggle with alcohol, her medical issues, that she had

taken responsibility, and that she is not “the same person that did this offense.” Thus, the

record shows that the district court carefully weighed the factors in favor of and against

departure, and even stated that this was a “difficult decision[].” We recognize that the

7
district court did make frequent reference to her criminal history. However, the record

shows that these references do not indicate that the district court felt that it did not have the

necessary discretion to depart. Instead, we interpret the district court’s discussion of

Skavlem-Short’s criminal history as a reflection of its level of concern regarding this factor.

Moreover, we also note that the district court’s discussion of this factor was not only

proper, but was in fact necessary in order to respond to the main argument raised by the

state against departure because the district court must consider the arguments raised both

for and against departure. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d at 264.

In sum, the district court did not err by determining that Skavlem-Short is not

particularly amenable to probation and did not abuse its discretion by imposing a

presumptive executed sentence.

Affirmed.

8