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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-1756

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Pakaykeo Phetsomphou,
Appellant.

Filed August 13, 2018
Affirmed
Cleary, Chief Judge

Scott County District Court
File No. 70-CR-16-23393

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

Ronald Hocevar, Scott County Attorney, Todd P. Zettler, Assistan t County Attorney,
Shakopee, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jennifer Lauermann, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Cleary, Chief Judge; and
Smith, Tracy M., Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CLEARY, Chief Judge
In this sentencing appeal, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion
when it denied his motion for a downward-d ispositional departure because appellant is

2
particularly amenable to probation and had enrolled in chemical-dep endency treatment.
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
FACTS
In December 2016, appellant Pakaykeo Phetsomphou was charged with one count
of first-degree aggravated robbery in violatio n of Minn. Stat. § 609. 245, subd. 1 (2016),
and one count of third-degree assault in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.223, subd. 1 (2016),
based on an incident that occurred earlier th at month. Appellant later pleaded guilty to
first-degree aggravated robbery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the state dismissed the
assault charge and agreed not to seek an aggravated sentence.
Appellant moved for a downward-dispositi onal departure arguing that he was
amenable to treatment and probation, and had accepted responsibility for his crime. At the
time of the motion, appellant had complete d an anger-managemen t class, chemical-
dependency treatment, individual counseling, and was enrolled in treatment aftercare.
Appellant had also returned the stolen property and it appeared that he had not engaged in
further criminal activity.
A presentence investigation (PSI) was comp leted, which confirmed that appellant
had completed chemical-dependency treatment. The PSI author was “unable to identify
any mitigating factors that would support a downward departure” and concluded that
appellant’s risk of recidivism was high. The PSI recommended a guidelines sentence of
58 months.
The district court denied appellant’s motion, stating that it was “not convinced that
this was an impetuous act.” The district court noted that appellant was on probation at the

3
time of the offense and had been instructed not to consume alcohol, but was under the
influence at the time of the o ffense. The district court concluded that appellant was “at
high risk based on the assessments that we ha ve done and the histor y that we see.” The
district court sentenced appellant to 58 months in prison, and imposed $18,147.17 in fines,
fees, and restitution. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Appellate courts afford “‘the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of
sentences’ and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v.
Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014) (quoting State v. Spain, 590 N.W.2d 85, 88
(Minn. 1999)). Our review of a district c ourt’s decision whether to impose a sentencing
departure is “extremely deferential.” Dillon v. State, 781 N.W.2d 588, 596 (Minn. App.
2010), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010). Appellant argues that the district court abused
its discretion because he was particularly amenable to probatio n and had enrolled in
chemical-dependency treatment. We disagree.
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines “prescrib[e] a sentence or range of sentences
that is presumed to be appropriate.” Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 308 ( quotation omitted). The
guidelines “maintain unifor mity, proportionality , rationality, and pr edictability in
sentencing.” Minn. Stat. § 24 4.09, subd. 5(2) (2016). Th erefore, departures from the
guidelines are discouraged unless “there are identifiable, substan tial, and compelling
circumstances to support a departure.” State v. Solberg , 882 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Minn.
2016) (quotation omitted). “Substantial and compelling circumstances are those

4
circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” State
v. Peake, 366 N.W.2d 299, 301 (Minn. 1985).
A district court may grant a downward-di spositional departure if a defendant is
“particularly amenable to probation.” Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 309. However, a district court
is not required to depart even when it finds th at a defendant is particularly amenable to
probation. State v. Olson , 765 N.W.2d 662, 664-65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district
court has discretion to impose a downward di spositional departure if a defendant is
particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.”).
The record shows that the district cour t reviewed the factors for and against a
downward-dispositional departure and relied on the PSI in concluding that a departure was
not warranted. The district court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying appellant’s
motion.
Affirmed.