In another reminder that sentencing departures remain the exception, not the rule, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a Carver County District Court’s decision to grant a downward dispositional departure to a career offender.
Before diving into the facts, a quick primer on two types of departures. A downward dispositional departure occurs when the presumptive guidelines sentence calls for a commitment to institutional custody, but the district court instead stays that sentence and places the defendant on probation—focusing on the defendant’s character and whether they are particularly amenable to treatment. A downward durational departure, by contrast, reduces the length of the institutional sentence itself and must be based on the seriousness of the offense, not the offender’s characteristics. In this case, the defendant sought—and initially received—a dispositional departure: probation instead of the presumptive commitment.
The case, State v. Fenske (filed May 4, 2026), originates out of Carver County and involved a defendant convicted of felony financial transaction card fraud. A jury also found that the defendant had five or more prior felony convictions and that the offense was part of a pattern of criminal conduct—making him a career offender eligible for an upward durational departure.
The state moved for an upward durational departure. The defendant moved for a downward dispositional departure (a stay of the presumptive commitment in favor of probation). The Carver County District Court granted the defendant’s motion, imposing the presumptive 24-month commitment but staying its execution, ordering 360 days in local jail with credit, and placing him on probation.
In support of this decision, the district court judge cited several reasons: the defendant’s wife attended hearings, he made “good use” of his jail time by taking online courses (e.g., “Navigating Large Emotions,” “Increasing Your Happiness,” “Zen Lifestyle”), and he maintained sobriety—though the judge admitted it was “a little bit of a forced sobriety, because [he was] in jail.” The court also found the offense “less onerous than usual” because many of his prior convictions were old or unrelated.
The Carver County Attorney’s Office appealed, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed.
Key Holdings:
Improper reliance on offense severity: The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the Carver County District judge erred by considering the severity of the offense (finding it “less onerous”) to support a dispositional departure. As noted above, a dispositional departure must focus on offender characteristics, not offense seriousness—that’s the domain of a durational departure.
No particular amenability to treatment: The court emphasized that a dispositional departure requires a showing that the defendant is particularly amenable to probation—distinguishing him from most other offenders. Here, the record showed the opposite:
- The defendant was 41 years old with a criminal history score of 11 (11 felony convictions over 20 years).
- He committed the offense while on supervised release and was charged with five additional crimes while awaiting trial.
- He tested positive for methamphetamine six times while on supervised release, denied use, and blamed his wife for drugging him without his knowledge.
- His jail “programming” were generic online courses, not chemical dependency treatment, and his sobriety was “forced” by incarceration.
- His expressions of remorse were equivocal until the district court directly pressed him.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the district court’s findings left it with “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made,” stating: “This is not an exceptional case, and the grant of a downward dispositional departure was an abuse of discretion.”
Takeaway: A district court judge cannot borrow offense-based reasoning (reserved for durational departures) to justify a dispositional departure. And for a career offender with a long criminal record, pending new charges, repeated drug use, and only jail-forced sobriety plus online “happiness” courses, there is no “particular amenability” to probation. The departure was reversed, and the case remanded for resentencing consistent with the presumptive guidelines sentence.
