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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A16-1929

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Katherine Marie Kurimay,
Appellant.

Filed August 28, 2017
Affirmed
Rodenberg, Judge

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-CR-15-3579

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

James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Jackie Warner, Assistant County Attorney,
Hastings, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Veronica M. Surges, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and
Jesson, Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
RODENBERG, Judge
Appellant Katherine Marie Kurimay argues that the district court abused its
discretion by not dispositionally departing from the presumptive prison sentence of 60
months under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant was charged with felony theft by false representation after she used a
check in the amount of $41,670.62 from an invalid account to acquire a car from a
dealership. She pleaded guilty to the charge in exchange for the state dismissing charges
in a different court file. There was no agreement concerning sentencing.
Dakota County Community Corrections co nducted a presentence investigation
(PSI) and recommended a downward dis positional departure from the Minnesota
Sentencing Guidelines. The presumptive guidelines sentence was an executed sentence of
52 to 71 months. The PSI re commended a 20-year probation on specified conditions.
Appellant asked the district court to follo w the PSI recommendation, arguing that she
committed the crime because of mental-health issues. The state requested a guidelines
sentence.
The district court sentenced appellant to 52 months in prison (the “bottom of the
box”) and ordered appellant to pay restitution. The distri ct court found insufficient
correlation between appellant’s mental-health issues and her crimes and observed that her
past history of continuing to commit simila r crimes while on probation shows that
community-based treatment and supervision ha ve been unsuccessful. The district court

3
also noted that appellant had been charged with other simila r crimes while this case was
pending.
This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by ignoring “substantial
and compelling reasons” to dispositionally depart and stay the execution of her sentence.
Specifically, she argues the district court abused its discretion by not considering evidence
showing that her crimes were the result of a treatable mental illness, she showed remorse
for the crimes of which she was convicted, and she has a good support network.
Appellate courts afford a district cour t “great discretion in the imposition of
sentences and reverse sentencing decisions on ly for an abuse of that discretion.” State v.
Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014) (q uotation omitted). We will not interfere
with a district court’s decision to impose th e presumptive guidelines sentence “as long as
the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information
presented before making a determination.” State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251, 255 (Minn.
App. 2011) (quotation omitted). When considering whether to depart from the guidelines,
a district court may consider a defendant’s age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude
while in court, and the support of friends and/or family. State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31
(Minn. 1982). Mental impairment is one mitigating factor that may be used to depart from
the guidelines. Minn. Sent. Guid elines 2.D.3.a(3) (2014). The existence of a mitigating
factor does not mandate a departure; such a factor only permits departure if, in the exercise

4
of its discretion, the district court determ ines that substantial and compelling reasons
warrant departure. State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981).
Here, the district court based its decisi on not to depart from the guidelines on
permissible considerations. The district court found that appellant committed a number of
similar crimes in a short period of time and that she had been charged with similar crimes
while this case was pending. It also co nsidered a psychological evaluation, which
described appellant’s criminal activity as “part of a repertoire of unhealthy and maladaptive
ways of coping” and wh ich concluded that appellant’s “personality traits . . . tend to be
somewhat inflexible.” The district cour t was unconvinced that appellant’s criminal
behavior was directly related to her mental-h ealth issues. The dist rict court considered
appellant’s earlier failures while on probation. These findings are supported by the record
and are factors proper for consideration in sentencing. The dist rict court carefully
considered appellant’s sentencing arguments and acted within its discretion in denying her
motion for a downward dispositional departure.
Affirmed.