The Minnesota Court of Appeals has reversed a Duluth man’s 20-year sentence in a 2015 Rice Lake home invasion because it deemed the length of his sentence too severe.
Guy Robert Franklin Rabold, 28, was sentenced in April 2016 after pleading guilty to aiding and abetting aggravated first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary, being a felon in possession of a firearm and theft of a motor vehicle.
Rabold and co-defendant John Scott Sorenson entered a Rehbein Road home in the early hours of June 5, 2015, and held the two homeowners at gunpoint. In the homeowners’ bedroom, the intruders forced the couple to undress before leading them naked downstairs to open a safe.
During Rabold’s 2016 trial, Sixth District Judge Eric Hylden granted the prosecution’s motion to classify Rabold as a “dangerous offender,” making him eligible for an increased sentence on the aggravated robbery count.
Rabold was sentenced to 240 months in prison on the aggravated robbery count and received concurrent sentences on the other counts. The theft conviction was later vacated.
Typically, guidelines call for a presumptive sentence of 111 months in a case such as Rabold's.
In 2017, Rabold challenged the “dangerous offender” status after a prior conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm was vacated in district court because the weapon in question was an air-powered BB gun.
The appeals court on Monday found that the “dangerous offender” categorization was appropriate given the victims’ vulnerability as they were forced to undress and held at gunpoint.
However, the appeals court reversed the length of Rabold’s sentence, stating that a sentence of more than double the presumptive term requires “severe and aggravating circumstances,” which the court ruled didn’t exist in this case.
This was Rabold’s second appeal in the case. In 2017, Rabold challenged one of his concurrent sentences because it “arose from the same behavioral incident,” according to court documents. The appeals court vacated the concurrent sentence but affirmed the 240-month term at the time.
The case now goes back to district court for resentencing.