State of Minnesota v. Oluwatobi Samson Taiwo

Anoka, Minnesota criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with criminal sexual conduct.



In early 2022, appellant Oluwatobi Samson Taiwo, then 19 years old, became acquainted with the 12-year-old victim through friends. Appellant, his four friends, and victim had a group chat on Snapchat. On February 3, 2022, appellant and victim texted each other, victim asked appellant to come to her house, and they had oral and vaginal sex in a truck parked next to her house. On March 13, 2022, appellant and victim again had oral and vaginal sex in the truck next to her house. After both encounters, appellant messaged the group chat about engaging in sexual contact with victim. These friends had also engaged in sexual contact with victim.[1]



On June 20, 2023, appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct as part of a plea deal and admitted to the following two aggravating sentencing factors: multiple forms of penetration and committing the crime as part of a group of three or more people. See State v. Adell, 755 N.W.2d 767, 774 (Minn.App. 2008); Minn. Sent'g Guidelines 2.D.3(b)(10) (2021). In exchange, the state dismissed three other charges and withdrew the aggravating factor based on victim's age. Minn. Sent'g Guidelines 2.D.3(b)(1) (2021). During the plea hearing, appellant admitted to penetrating victim orally and vaginally, communicating about these sexual encounters in the group chat after each incident, and that he was aware that these friends were also engaging in sexual contact with victim. At the end of the hearing, the clerk asked whether the district court accepted appellant's guilty pleas. The district court responded: "And the pleas are both accepted . . . if I did not say that earlier."



* * *



Legal issue Did the district court err by imposing a lifetime conditional-release term and an upward sentence departure without valid supporting factors in a first-degree criminal sexual conduct case?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. SENTENCING. The case concerns an appeal against the imposition of a lifetime conditional-release term on the appellant's second count conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, where the appellant argued there were no prior sexual-conduct convictions to justify such a sentence under Minnesota law.



CRIMINAL LAW. SENTENCING. The court examined whether the district court erred in imposing an upward durational departure in sentencing based on multiple forms of penetration and the determination that the crime was part of a group offense, concluding that only the multiple forms of penetration justified the upward departure.



CRIMINAL LAW. SENTENCING GUIDELINES. The court discussed the proper application of aggravating factors in determining upward sentencing departures under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and emphasized the necessity of distinguishing between valid and invalid factors.



Key Phrases First-degree criminal sexual conduct. Lifetime conditional-release term. Upward durational departure. Multiple forms of penetration. Group of three or more offenders.

Affirmed