State of Minnesota v. Zaki Mohamed Sugule

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A15-0826
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
vs.
Zaki Mohamed Sugule,
Appellant.
Filed February 29, 2016
Affirmed
Hooten, Judge
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-14-24105
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Chang Y. Lau, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and Hooten,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
HOOTEN, Judge
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion
for a downward durational sentencing departure. We affirm.
FACTS
On the afternoon of August 1, 2014, appellant Zaki Mohamed Sugule went to a
coffee shop in Minneapolis. Sugule had been drinking alcohol since early in the day, and
he was intoxicated when he arrived at the coffee shop. Noticing a group of Somali men
engaged in conversation, Sugule, who is also from Somalia, tried to participate in the
discussion. Because of his state of intoxication, the Somali men refused to include Sugule
in their conversation, at which point Sugule became angry and threatened to harm one of
the men with a drill bit that Sugule was holding. Sugule was arrested shortly thereafter,
and on August 18, 2014, he was charged with one count of terroristic threats (reckless
disregard) in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd. 1 (2014).1
On October 1, 2014, Sugule pleaded guilty to the sole count in the complaint.
Pending sentencing, Sugule was allowed to be released to a mental illness and chemical
dependency treatment program. The prosecutor stated that he would “consider
[recommending] probation” if Sugule made “satisfactory progress” in the treatment
program. The prosecutor also stated that he would consider recommending 21 months in
prison if Sugule was unable to make satisfactory progress, which would have been a
downward durational departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence of 30 months.
A sentencing hearing was held on January 26, 2015. Sugule initially appeared, but
after defense counsel told him that the district court was not going to consider a
1
On May 12, 2015, the offense of “terroristic threats” was renamed “threats of
violence.” 2015 Minn. Laws ch. 21, art. 1, § 109, at 234 (amending Minn. Stat. § 609.713
(2014)). Because this change took effect after Sugule committed his offense, we refer to
the offense as “terroristic threats” rather than “threats of violence.”
2
probationary sentence, Sugule fled from the courtroom. On February 16, 2015, Sugule was
arrested at the airport while trying to leave the country.
At the next sentencing hearing on February 18, 2015, the prosecutor argued against
probation, but recommended a sentence of 21 months in prison. Defense counsel also
requested that the district court sentence him to 21 months in prison. Sugule told the district
court that the treatment program had shown him that he had a drinking problem and had
taught him how to control his anger, which stemmed from his experiences as a youth during
the civil war in Somalia. The district court acknowledged Sugule’s difficult past, but
stated:
THE COURT: Okay. Well, Mr. Sugule, you’re saying the
right things today . . . . But I simply can’t give you the same
benefit of the doubt that I was prepared to do back on
December 8th. Even with the . . . support of RS Eden,
including the person who was in the courtroom that day as you
left and told you not to leave—
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: —you nonetheless left and you’ve done that in
the past with regard to your 2011 fifth degree assault
conviction when you absconded from supervision a couple of
times according to the PSI.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I understand.
THE COURT: I was prepared to sentence you to 21 months in
prison, which would have been a departure, and that was based
upon the [s]tate’s offer in the case initially . . . , but also based
upon your acceptance of responsibility and the treatment
through RS Eden. When you walked away from the courtroom
that day, and because you’ve been basically out in the wind for
the last month or so, I’m not going to give you that deal
anymore.
The district court sentenced Sugule to 30 months in prison. This appeal followed.
3
DECISION
Sugule argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for
a downward durational sentencing departure. “[Appellate courts] afford the [district] court
great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an
abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 307–08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation
omitted). “[Appellate courts] will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence [falling] within
the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are
grounds that would justify departure.” State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006)
(quotation omitted). Indeed, “it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the
refusal to depart.” State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981).
“Requests for durational departures require the district court to consider whether the
conduct involved in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than
the typical conduct for that crime.” State v. Peter, 825 N.W.2d 126, 130 (Minn. App.
2012), review denied (Minn. Feb. 27, 2013). “Caselaw is settled that offender-related
factors do not support durational departures.” Id. Thus, a district court must consider only
offense-related factors when deciding a request for a durational departure.
Sugule argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to fully consider
the mitigating factors in support of a downward durational departure. First, he argues that
his problems with alcohol and anger were mitigating factors that the district court gave
insufficient weight. However, alcohol and anger problems are offender-based in nature
and therefore are not factors a district court may consider in deciding whether to grant a
durational departure. See id.
4
Next, Sugule argues that his acceptance of responsibility was a proper factor to
justify a downward durational departure. “As a general rule, a defendant’s remorse bears
only on a decision whether or not to depart dispositionally, not on a decision to depart
durationally . . . .” State v. Back, 341 N.W.2d 273, 275 (Minn. 1983). “However, there
may be cases in which the defendant’s lack of remorse could relate back and be considered
as evidence bearing on a determination of the cruelty or seriousness of the conduct on
which the conviction was based.” State v. McGee, 347 N.W.2d 802, 806 n.1 (Minn. 1984).
Sugule fails to show how his supposed remorse in any way related back to make his
offense less serious. During his post-Miranda interview with police, Sugule denied that he
threatened anyone. And, he showed a lack of remorse and an unwillingness to accept
responsibility when he fled from the courthouse during his first sentencing hearing and
appeared before the district court again only after being arrested at the airport. The record
does not support Sugule’s claim that his alleged remorse related back to the seriousness of
his offense.
Sugule also argues that the district court abused its discretion by impermissibly
considering his failure to appear at the January 26, 2015 sentencing hearing in its decision
not to depart. Post-offense conduct is not relevant to a decision on whether to depart
durationally because it does not relate to the seriousness of the offense. State v. Behl, 573
N.W.2d 711, 713 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Mar. 19, 1998). It does appear
that the district court improperly considered Sugule’s flight from the first sentencing
hearing as a reason for denying his request for a downward durational departure. But, “the
district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence.”
5
State v. Johnson, 831 N.W.2d 917, 925 (Minn. App. 2013), review denied (Minn. Sept. 17,
2013). Moreover, there are no offense-related factors that would support a downward
durational departure in this case. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion
by denying Sugule’s motion.
Affirmed.
6