State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1335

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Abdulaziz Mohamed Abukar,
Appellant.

Filed May 22, 2017
Affirmed
Schellhas, Judge

Anoka County District Court
File No. 02-CR-15-348

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Anthony C. Palumbo, Anoka County Attorney, Kelsey R. Kelley, Assistant County
Attorney, Anoka, Minnesota (for respondent)

Caroline Durham, Durham Law Office, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Pres iding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Jesson,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SCHELLHAS, Judge
Appellant challenges his permissive cons ecutive sentences on four counts of first-
degree aggravated robbery. We affirm.

2
FACTS
On July 28, 2014, while armed with a knife, appellant Abdulaziz Abukar entered a
gas station and forced employees to put mone y into his backpack. One week later, while
armed with a BB gun, Abukar entered a co nvenience store; pointed the BB gun at an
employee; stated, “[D]o you want to die; you know I’ll kill you”; and forced the employee
to empty cash registers into his backpack. Later that day, Abukar returned to the gas station
that he had robbed on July 28. Still armed with the BB gu n, Abukar ordered employees
and customers into the interior cash-register station and forced the employees to empty
cash registers into his backpack. Eleven days later, Abukar approached a group of about
ten people at a bonfire in a residential backyard, pointed a silver handgun at the group, and
demanded that someone give hi m keys to a vehicle. One pe rson complied, and Abukar
drove away in her car. Police apprehended Abukar the next day.
Respondent State of Minnesota charged Ab ukar with four counts of first-degree
aggravated robbery in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.245, subd. 1 (2012 & 2014), and one
count of receiving stolen property in viola tion of Minn. Stat. § 609.53, subd. 1 (2014).
Abukar was 17 years old at the time of the robberies. After the district court granted the
state’s adult-certification petition, Abukar pl eaded guilty to all of the first-degree
aggravated-robbery counts, and the state di smissed the receiving-stolen-property count.
The district court released Abukar pending sentencing.
Eight days later, Abukar robbed a liquor store in Blaine. During the robbery, he
struck a store employee several times. At the sentencing hearing for his four first-degree
aggravated-robbery convictions, the distri ct court imposed consecutive presumptive

3
sentences of 48 months for each convic tion, resulting in a total of 192 months’
imprisonment. At the same hearing, Abukar pleaded guilty to one count of simple robbery
for the liquor-store robbery, and the district court imposed a 48-month sentence concurrent
with his first-degree aggravated-robbery sentences.
This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Abukar argues that the district court’ s imposition of consecutive sentences for his
first-degree aggravated-robbery convictions was unreasonable. Consecutive sentences for
multiple first-degree aggravated-robbery convictions are permissive under the Minnesota
Sentencing Guidelines. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.F.2.a.(1).(ii), 6 (2012 & 2014).
“[Appellate courts] will not disturb a distri ct court’s decision to impose permissive
consecutive sentences absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Vang, 774 N.W.2d 566,
584 (Minn. 2009). “The district court abus es its discretion in imposing consecutive
sentences when the resulting sentence unfai rly exaggerates the criminality of the
defendant’s conduct.” Id. “In determining whether a sentence has exaggerated the
criminality of a defendant’s conduct, [appellate courts] will take guidance from past
sentences imposed on similarly situated defendants.” Id. But “[i]n cases with multiple
victims, consecutive sentences are rarely, if ever, disproportionate to the offense.” State v.
Ali, 855 N.W.2d 235, 259 (Minn. 2014).
Abukar argues that the district court a bused its discretion by failing to adequately
consider the facts of his robberies. He spec ifically faults the district court for not
considering the following facts: he used a kn ife during one robbery instead of a gun; he

4
used a BB gun during two of the robberies, which he maintains ha d “little likelihood of
causing serious injury”; he used an unloaded handgun durin g the fourth robbery; and he
caused no physical harm during any of the robberies. But Abukar cites to no authority and
offers no rationale to support a proposition that any of these facts mitigates his culpability.
And the record shows Abukar’s crimes were very serious. Over the course of about two
weeks, Abukar terrorized over a dozen people, threatening to kill a convenience-store
employee during one robbery and holding empl oyees and customers captive in another.
The facts and circumstances surrounding Abukar’s crimes do not support a conclusion that
the district court’s sentence exaggerates the criminality of his conduct.
Abukar also argues that the district court did not adequately consider his age, mental
health, and chemical-dependency issues at sentencing. This argument is unavailing. First,
the district court explicitly addressed Abuk ar’s age and chemical-dependency issues,
noting that Abukar was “very young, under 18 years old when the crimes were committed,”
and that “[t]here are some judgment pieces, we know from brain development, that simply
hadn’t kicked in, and using drugs delays those processes even further.” The court
nevertheless determined that public-safety concerns outweighed those considerations.
Second, although mental impairment such that the defendant “lacked substantial capacity
for judgment when the offe nse was committed” may constitu te a mitigating factor in
sentencing, Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.a.(3) (2012 & 2014), Abukar never argued to the
district court that this mitigating factor was present in his case. To the contrary, when he
pleaded guilty to robbing the Blaine liquor store, he told the district court that he did not

5
suffer from any mental-health issues. Based on this record, we cannot say that the district
court abused its discretion by imposing permissive consecutive sentences.
Finally, Abukar argues that he should be resentenced because the district court
informed him at his plea hearing that it intended to sentence him to no more than ten years
in prison so long as he complied with the court-imposed release conditions. He argues that
he complied with the release conditions, which he asserts were only that he cooperate with
the presentence investigation and show up on time for sentencing. Abukar ignores the
record. Before the district court released hi m, it explicitly informed and warned him that
he “need[ed] to be law-abiding” and that failure to follow the court’s conditions would
result in “a lot of prison time.” Yet shortly after his release, Abukar committed another
robbery. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a higher presumptive
sentence because of Abukar’s failure to remain law abiding. See State v. Delk, 781 N.W.2d
426, 428 (Minn. App. 2010) (“This court will generally not exercise its authority to modify
a sentence within the presum ptive range absent compelli ng circumstances.” (quotation
omitted)), review denied (Minn. July 10, 2010).
Affirmed.