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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-0375

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Brett Steven Lewis,
Appellant.

Filed September 25, 2017
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Sherburne County District Court
File No. 71-CR-16-1038

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

Kathleen A. Heaney, Sherbu rne County Attorney, Kevin C. Lin, Assistant County
Attorney, Elk River, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Ap pellate Public Defender, Rochelle R. Winn, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Jesson,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REILLY, Judge
Appellant Brett Steven Lewis challenges th e district court’s sentencing decision
arising from his conviction of violation of a domestic abuse no contact order. The district

2
court declined to grant a downward durationa l departure and sentenced appellant to the
presumptive sentence under the Minnesota Sent encing Guidelines. Because the district
court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
Appellant Brett Steven Lewis contends that the district court abused its discretion
by denying his motion for a downward durational departure. We review a district court’s
refusal to grant a departure from the sentencing guidelines for an abuse of discretion, State
v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (M inn. 2006), and we will affirm the imposition of a
presumptive sentence “when the record shows that the sentencing court carefully evaluated
all the testimony and information presen ted before making a determination.” State v.
Johnson, 831 N.W.2d 91 7, 925 (Minn. App. 20 13) (quotation omitted), review denied
(Minn. Sept. 17, 2013).
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines pr escribe a sentence or a range for the
sentence that is “presumed to be appropriate.” State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 308 (Minn.
2014). The sentencing court “must pronounce a sentence within the applicable range
unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances” distinguishing
the case and overcoming the presumption in favor of the presumptive disposition. Id. The
sentencing court first calculates the defend ant’s presumptive sentencing range for the
underlying offense. State v. Kangbateh, 868 N.W.2d 10, 17-18 (Minn. 2015). Only a “rare
case” merits reversal based on a court’s refusa l to depart from the sentencing guidelines.
State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981).

3
Here, a domestic abuse no contact orde r (DANCO) prohibited appellant from
contacting A.J.W. While in prison, appellant wrote letters to A.J.W., urged her to visit him
in prison, which she did, and encouraged he r to drop domestic assault charges pending
against him. The state charged appellant with violating the DANCO. Appellant entered a
plea of guilty to violating a DANCO under the terms of a plea agreement. The presentence
investigation report revealed appellant had a criminal history score of 11. For an offender
with this criminal history score, the pres umptive sentence for a DANCO violation is
commitment to prison for 26 to 36 months, with a presumptive duration of 30 months.
Minn. Sent. Guidelines 4.A. The district court sentenced appellant to 26 months in prison,
which is within the presumptive range artic ulated by the senten cing guidelines for an
individual with appellant’s criminal history score. The record supports the court’s decision
that the presumptive sentence was appropriate in this case. See Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 314
(looking to the record for evidence to support the district court’s finding).
Appellant argues that the presumptive sent ence constitutes an abuse of discretion
because his offense was “significantly less se rious than the typical [DANCO] violation.”
We disagree. A district court may grant a downward durational departure if it finds the
defendant’s conduct was significantly “less seri ous than that typica lly involved in the
commission of the crime in question.” State v. Cox, 343 N.W.2d 641, 643 (Minn. 1984).
A “district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence.”
Johnson, 831 N.W.2d at 925.
Here, the sentencing court considered and rejected appellant’s arguments in favor
of a downward departure, determining that appellant contacted A.J.W. by both telephone

4
and by letter, and “agitated for the contact through a third party.” The court reasoned that
“this is not an atypical case that would justif y a departure for being less serious than the
typical case.” The sentencing court consid ered appellant’s arguments in favor of a
downward durational departure, along with the record as a whole, and concluded that such
a departure was unwarranted. See Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d at 668 (not ing that sentencing
court is not required to depart from presum ptive sentence even upon showing that
mitigating factors are present). Because we discern no abuse of discretion in the sentencing
court’s determination, we affirm. See State v. Delk , 781 N.W.2d 426, 428 (Minn. App.
2010) (limiting reversal of sentencing court’ s imposition of presumptive sentence to rare
cases), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).
Affirmed.