State of Minnesota v. Hunter Steven Hipp

Foley, Minnesota first-degree arson criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.

Hunter Hipp pleaded guilty to first-degree arson after intentionally setting fires in the kitchen and living room of his apartment. He notified the district court in writing of his intent to move "for a dispositional and/or durational departure from the presumptive sentence," and at sentencing he argued exclusively that he was particularly amenable to

probation. The district court denied his departure motion. Hipp argues on appeal that the district court misconstrued his criminal record as applied to his dispositional-departure request and that it erroneously failed to decide his supposed durational-departure request. Although the district court misinterpreted the law when it assessed Hipp's criminal history for sentencing, the mistake did not affect the court's decision not to depart dispositionally because it found that Hipp's failure to appreciate and address his mental-health issues precluded a finding that he is amenable to probation. And after Hipp's notice to the district court that he would move "for a dispositional and/or durational departure," his eventual arguments in support of his motion focused only on the factors bearing on a dispositional departure. The district court therefore acted within its discretion by addressing only the dispositional-departure request and imposing the presumptive sentence.

We affirm.



State v. Hipp, A23-1836 (Minn. App. Sep 16, 2024)