Here is the opinion in State v. Shingobe (Minn. App.). The case includes an interesting concurring opinion suggesting some sympathy to the defendant’s argument that she is the victim of “historical trauma”:

The historic trauma suffered by Native Americans has been well documented.  See, e.g., Grant Forman,  Indian Removal (2d ed. 1972).  The impact of that trauma continues to reverberate in their communities and our society continues to grapple with how to best address it.  Rates of poverty, unemployment, suicide, domestic violence, and substance abuse are all significantly higher among Native Americans.  Craig Lambert, Trails of Tears, and Hope, Harv. Mag., Mar.–Apr. 2008, at 39, 42-43.  In Minnesota, Native Americans are disproportionately represented in our prison population.  They are just over 1% of the overall population, but are 8% of our prison inmates. * * *

And:

Emphasizing factors unique to the Native American  community, appellant urges that we recognize that incarceration is not the best option for a Native American with a long history of mental disorder and substance abuse.  And while the sentencing guidelines do not allow considerations of race and social factors as reasons for departure, Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.D.1 a., d. (2010), some of those factors may be considered indirectly to determine whether a defendant is “particularly amenable to treatment in a probationary setting.”  State v. Solomon, 359 N.W.2d 19, 22 (Minn. 1984).

The record indicates that in addition to numerous convictions for driving while intoxicated and thus being a  risk to public safety, appellant has an extensive history of mental conditions and substance abuse.  I recognize that appellant may have greater prospects for overcoming her alcohol dependency by participating in a culturally appropriate program in long-term treatment facility instead of prison.  But, given appellant‟s record, an important consideration in the sentencing decision is that the proposed treatment be “consistent with public safety.”  See Minn. Stat. § 609.1055 (2010) (providing that a court may sentence an offender with a serious and persistent mental illness to probation, as opposed to incarceration, when “consistent with public safety”).  To properly address the safety risk, appellant should be in a secure (locked) treatment facility.  Unfortunately, an appropriate secured treatment facility, whether Native American or otherwise, does not exist.  Without such a facility, the judicial system has no other option besides incarceration.