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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-2058

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Aaron Michael Anderson,
Appellant.

Filed October 8, 2018
Affirmed
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Olmsted County District Court
File No. 55-CR-16-8543

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

Mark A. Ostrem, Olmsted County Attorney, Jennifer D. Plante, Se nior Assistant County
Attorney, Rochester, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Cleary, Chief Judge; Kirk, Judge; an d Smith, Tracy M.,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
In this appeal from a 92-month presumptive sentence for second-degree controlled-
substance possession, appellant ar gues that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his motion for a dispositional departure. We affirm.
FACTS
In the middle of the night on December 10, 2016, appellant Aaron Anderson, driving
an ATV, stole a trailer with t wo snowmobiles on it. By the tim e the police arrived,
Anderson had crashed the ATV in a ditch. After Anderson was taken into custody, police
found 27.02 grams of methamphetamine in his jacket pocket.
Anderson posted bail and did not appear at a hearing in March 2017. Consequently,
the district court issued a bench warrant. Police arrested And erson about a month later.
He pleaded guilty to second-degree controlled-substance possession, one count of motor-
vehicle theft, and one count of possession of stolen property. In exchange, the state
dismissed other charges and agreed not to seek an upward sentencing departure.
At sentencing, Anderson moved for a downward dispositional dep arture. The
district court rejected this request, sentencing Anderson to 92 months’ imprisonment, the
low end of the presumptive range for his drug offense. The court also imposed concurrent
20-month sentences for the two other offenses.
This appeal follows.

3
D E C I S I O N
Anderson argues that the district court abused its discretion b y refusing to grant a
dispositional departure from the presumptive executed sentence. He argues that the district
court should have found that he was particularly amenable to probation.
We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a depart ure from the
presumptive sentence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 307-08
(Minn. 2014). We will reverse a district court’s refusal to de part from the presumptive
sentence only in a “rare case.” State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981).
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 are intended to “main tain uniformity, proportionalit y, rationality, and
predictability in sentencing.” Minn. Stat. § 244.09, subd. 5 (2016). Therefore, departures
are discouraged unless “there are identifiable, substantial, an d compelling circumstances
to support a departure.” State v. Solberg, 882 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Minn. 2016) (quotation
omitted). “Substantial and comp elling circumstances are those 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 dispositional departure from the presumptive
guidelines sentence if the defenda nt is “particularly amenable to probation.” Soto, 855
N.W.2d at 309; see M i n n . S e n t . G u i d e l i n e s 2 . D . 3 . a.(7) (2016) (including “particul arly
amenable to probation” as a mitigating factor). A finding that a defendant is particularly
amenable to probation may be supported “by the fact that the of fender is particularly

4
amenable to a relevant program of individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.a.(7 ). “[A] defendant’s particula r amenability to
individualized treatment in a probationary setting will justify departure in the form of a
stay of execution of a presump tively executed sentence.” State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28,
31 (Minn. 1982). When considering whether to grant a dispositional departure, the district
court may consider factors such as “the defendant’s age, his pr ior record, his remorse, his
cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” Id.
Anderson argues that he is particularly amenable to probation, and thereby entitled
to a dispositional departure, because he was “cooperative with police and displayed a good
attitude while in court,” “recognized his need for treatment and took responsibility for his
actions,” and had community suppo rt and “steady employment.” A nderson also cites to
the presentence investigation report, which stated that he was “taking full ownership of his
actions in [the] offense, along with his behaviors related to chemical addiction.”
An examination of the record doe s not indicate that this is a “ rare case” requiring
reversal of the district court’s imposition of the presumptive sentence. See Kindem, 313
N.W.2d at 7. The record indicates that the district court cons idered the reasons for and
against departure. The district court considered Anderson’s si ncere interest in obtaining
treatment, his prior treatment opportunities, the nature of his crimes, and his extensive
criminal history. Ultimately, the district court concluded the re were not substantial and
compelling reasons to depart on the basis of his amenability to probation. Based on the
record, that conclusion was not an abuse of discretion.

5
Further, even if the record did support a finding that Anderson is particularly
amenable to probation, “the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case
does ‘not obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than
the presumptive term.’” State v. Pegel , 795 N.W.2d 251, 253-54 (Minn. App. 2011)
(quoting State v. Wall , 343 N.W.2d 22, 25 (Minn. 1984)); see also State v. Olson , 765
N.W.2d 662, 664-65 (Minn. App. 20 09) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a
downward dispositional departure if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, but
it is not required to do so.”); State v. Evenson, 554 N.W.2d 409, 412 (Minn. App. 1996)
(“Even assuming [a defendant] is exceptionally amenable to trea tment, his amenability
does not dictate the result.”), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1996). The district court did
not abuse its discretion by imposing the presumptive guidelines sentence.
Affirmed.