A sentence by a district court judge in a rape case — characterized by the Ramsey County attorney’s office as a “slap on the wrist” — will stand.
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday denied the county attorney’s request that the justices review the case. The court’s decision comes after a ruling by the state’s Court of Appeals had affirmed the sentencing.
The petition was prosecutors’ last chance to get a lengthier sentence for Michael Hill.
Despite protests from the prosecuting attorney that the crime deserved a far more serious punishment, Ramsey County District Judge Stephen Smith sentenced Hill to probation last April after the 28-year-old from Hastings was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct for sexually assaulting an underage relative more than 100 times. He pleaded guilty to the crime two months earlier.
Arguing that the sentence was too lenient and showed an “abuse” of discretion by the judge, the Ramsey County attorney’s office appealed the sentencing in hopes a higher court would rule that Hill be resentenced. But the Court of Appeals affirmed Smith’s decision, finding that he correctly applied the legal standard needed to justify his sentencing departure for Hill.
It also noted the “broad discretion” the law affords district judges as a key reason for its ruling.
When he delivered the sentence last spring, Smith said Hill was a good candidate for probation because of his clean criminal record, family support, remorse and voluntary enrollment in a sex-offender treatment program.
The state Supreme Court in its order did not elaborate on why it denied the county attorney’s request. A spokeswoman for the state court administrator’s office said the court does not comment on review decisions.
The state’s highest court is petitioned to review about 700 cases a year, and accepts reviews in one in 10 cases, according to the state court system’s website.
Dennis Gerhardstein, spokesman for the Ramsey County attorney’s office, said in a statement about the decision:
“This case has always been about obtaining an appropriate level of justice. While we respect the decision by the district court which felt the defendant was amenable to probation, in our view it does not resonate with the offense for which he was ultimately convicted. The defendant failed to acknowledge the real harm he had caused, believing instead that he was in a ‘mutual relationship’ with the then-15-year-old victim. We hope he will be successful on probation, but remain concerned that this sentence falls short of the justice we sought.”
Hill’s defense attorney, Charles Clippert, declined to comment.