Minnesota Cases December 01, 2023: State v. Kraus

Case Description

1

Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-21-11252

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.

ORDER OPINION

Michelle A. Larkin Judge

BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:

1. Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Nicholas David Kraus with one count of second-degree intentional murder and two counts of second-degree assault. The complaint alleged that on June 13, 2021, Kraus drove his vehicle into a parked vehicle that was being used as a barricade to protect protestors, resulting in the death of one protestor and injuries to two others.

2. Pursuant to a plea agreement with the state, Kraus agreed to plead guilty to an amended charge of second-degree unintentional murder and one of the assault charges. Kraus also agreed that he would receive a sentence of 210 to 252 months' imprisonment. That range was within the presumptive sentencing range of 192 to 270 months'

2

imprisonment under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, consistent with Kraus's criminal-history score of five. See Minn. Sent'g Guidelines 4.A (2020).

3. Kraus entered a Norgaard plea, admitting that he did not remember everything that happened on the night of the offense because he had been driving under the influence of controlled substances, experiencing mental-health issues, hearing voices, and "acting somewhat erratically behind the wheel." See State ex rel. Norgaard v. Tahash , 110 N.W.2d 867, 871 (Minn. 1961) (allowing a defendant to plead guilty even though he claims loss of memory regarding the circumstances of the offense); State v. Ecker , 524 N.W.2d 712, 716 (Minn. 1994) (allowing a defendant to enter a Norgaard plea when the record establishes "that the evidence against the defendant is sufficient to persuade the defendant and his or her counsel that the defendant is guilty or likely to be convicted of the crime charged").

4. Kraus explained that, on the day of the offense, his impairment caused him to believe that he "could fly," and that he "assumed his tires were not on the ground" when he drove into the protestors. He agreed that based on all the evidence in the record- including police reports, witness statements, video footage, and accident reconstructions- there was a substantial likelihood that he would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offenses to which he pleaded guilty, if the state's evidence were presented at trial. The district court accepted Kraus's guilty plea.

5. At sentencing, the district court heard three victim-impact statements. A bystander, who was with the deceased victim at the time of her death, objected to the plea negotiation, explaining that the "trauma" from that night is something he "cannot unsee,

3

[and] is something [he will] carry with [him] for the rest of [his] life," and that he wanted Kraus to receive "the maximum amount of time allowed." The deceased victim's brother also gave a statement, explaining that the trauma from Kraus's actions left "an open hole in [his] heart that [he is] reminded of every day." Finally, the deceased victim's mother read a statement, explaining that her daughter's death has been "overwhelming" because she had lost her "best friend, [her] confidante, [her] partner in crime, [and her] reason to keep going every day."

6. The state argued for a sentence of 252 months' imprisonment, noting that Kraus had a history of driving while impaired. Kraus argued for a sentence of 210 months' imprisonment, noting that he accepted responsibility for his actions, showed remorse, had the support of friends and family, and had "made a concerted effort to better himself" since the offense. Kraus candidly told the district court that he "deserve[d] the top of the [range or] . . . more than that" because that would be a proper sentence under the circumstances.

7. After hearing arguments from counsel and considering the victim-impact statements, the presentence investigation report (PSI), a competency assessment, and Kraus's statements, the district court expressed concern that although it understood Kraus was "deep [in the] throes of a tough life," Kraus may have exaggerated or feigned psychosis. The record indicates that the district court considered the loss suffered by the victim's family and friends, as well as how Kraus's actions-which occurred during a peaceful protest-would have a chilling effect on the expression of First Amendment rights. The district court sentenced Kraus to concurrent terms of 240 months' and 45 months' imprisonment.

4

8. Kraus challenges his sentence. "We afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences" and review sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion. State v. Soto , 855 N.W.2d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

9. The district court must pronounce a sentence of the applicable disposition and within the applicable range set forth in the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, unless "identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances" support a departure. Minn. Sent'g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020). A sentence within the guidelines range is presumed appropriate. Id.

10. "A sentence within the presumptive-sentence range . . . is generally not subject to appellate review of the district court's exercise of its discretion." State v. Delk , 781 N.W.2d 426, 427 (Minn.App. 2010), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2010). Generally, "[t]his court will . . . not exercise its authority to modify a sentence within the presumptive range absent compelling circumstances." Id. at 428 (quotation omitted). This court will affirm the imposition of a presumptive guidelines sentence if the district court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making its decision. State v. Johnson , 831 N.W.2d 917, 925 (Minn.App. 2013), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 17, 2013). "Presumptive sentences are seldom overturned." State v. Andren , 347 N.W.2d 846, 848 (Minn.App. 1984).

11. Kraus argues that "compelling circumstances" justify a shorter term of incarceration for his offenses. As support, he repeats many of the arguments that were made on his behalf at sentencing. He cites his remorse, his "open and honest" participation

5

in the PSI, and his acknowledgment of the "immense pain" that he caused those affected by his actions. Kraus also points to the support of his friends and family. Finally, Kraus argues that he is a "good candidate for rehabilitation" because he has remained sober, has regained his faith and health, and has begun reading. Kraus asks us to vacate his sentence and remand to the district court with instructions to impose a sentence between 210 to 225 months.

12. The record indicates that in sentencing Kraus, the district court carefully considered the PSI, the competency report, the arguments of counsel, and Kraus's statements to the court, as well as the circumstances that Kraus notes on appeal. The district court found that Kraus's actions caused a "horrific direct loss" to the victims and the victims' families. In sum, the district court carefully evaluated all the information presented before making its decision. There is no basis for us to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a presumptive sentence.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The district court's imposition of a presumptive sentence of 240 months' imprisonment is affirmed.

2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

BY THE COURT