State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0910

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

William Issac Jones,
Appellant.

Filed March 18, 2019
Affirmed
Rodenberg, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-17-28217

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin Coun ty Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, A ssistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Adam Loze au, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reilly , Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and
Bratvold, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
RODENBERG, Judge
Appellant William Issac Jones appeals from his conviction and sentence for aiding
and abetting simple robbery. Appellant argued for either a dis positional or a durational

2
departure at the district court; the state recommended a durati onal departure. The district
court imposed a guidelines sentence at the “bottom of the box.” On appeal, appellant
argues that the district court abused its sentencing discretion by relying on offender-based
factors when it declined to impose a downward durational departure. We affirm.
FACTS
The state charged appellant with aiding and abetting simple robbery after appellant
robbed P.K. of his wallet and ATM card. Appellant was homeless at the time and had been
sleeping at the Chicago Lake Transit Station. P.K. had come into the station to sleep, and
a small group of people including appellant, P.K., and C.M., be gan drinking alcohol
together. Appellant became upset when P.K. said that he would not “buy another drink”
from appellant. P.K. told officers that he fell asleep and lat er woke up because C.M. was
“going through his pockets trying t o s t e a l hi s be l on gi n gs . ” Appellant assisted C.M. in
holding P.K. down and was the person who took his wallet.
Police arrested appellant, and the state charged him with aiding and abetting simple
robbery under Minn. Stat. § 609.24 (2016). Appellant admitted that he took P.K.’s wallet
and ATM card and used the card to purchase cigarettes that he could sell for money to buy
alcohol. In exchange for appellant’s plea of guilty, the state offered to recommend a 29-
month sentence, a downward duratio nal departure from the senten cing guidelines.
Appellant rejected the offer and entered a straight guilty plea , with no sentencing
agreement. Appellant’s trial counsel explained to the district court that appellant planned
to argue for a downward dispositional departure at sentencing.

3
At sentencing, the state argued against appellant’s request for a dispositional
departure. The state expressed that, given appellant’s past, it “would be hard for the court
to find that he’s particularly amenable to probation or treatment.” The state did support a
downward durational sentencing de parture, reasoning that appell ant “played a somewhat
less active role” and “wasn’t th e initiator of the robbery.” T he state based its position on
“how [appellant] conducted himself and the offense-related factors” and asked the district
court to impose and execute a 29-month sentence.
The probation officer present at sentencing explained that “[p] robation has been
extended to [appellant] numerous times, and he has had probatio n violations each time
which have resulted in prison. ” The probation officer explaine d that appellant “is not
amenable to probation” because probation has exhausted everything that it has to offer to
appellant. The probation officer therefore recommended that the court impose and execute
the presumptive 38-month middle-of-the-box prison sentence.
Appellant’s attorney argued for a dispositional departure to pr obation so that
appellant could complete treatment. Appellant’s attorney argued that appellant “has been
dealing with three co-occurring significant issues[:] traumatic brain injury, mental-health
issues, and chemical d ependency.” In the alternative, appellan t moved for a downward
durational departure.
The district court, after hearing these arguments and reviewing t h e p r e s e n t e n c e
investigation (PSI), declined t o depart from the guidelines. T he district court explained
that it was denying the departure requests because appellant was not particularly amenable
to probation. The district cour t expressed appreciation of the state’s argument that

4
appellant’s conduct was “less serious” than is typical, but exe cuted a bottom-of-the-box
guidelines sentence of 33 months.
This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
On appeal, appellant argues that the district court abused its sentencing discretion
because it denied both a dispositional and a durational departure based solely on offender-
related factors.
A district court must impose th e presumptive guidelines senten ce absent
identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances justify ing the departure. State v.
Johnson, 831 N.W.2d 917, 925 (Minn. App. 2013), review denied (Minn. Sept. 17, 2013).
The decision to depart lies within the district court’s discret ion, and appellate courts will
not reverse a presumptive sentence absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Kindem, 313
N.W.2d 6, 7-8 (Minn. 1981). A district court’s discretion is b road, and only a rare case
warrants reversal of a guidelines sentence. Id. at 7. Even when grounds exist that may
justify a departure, appellate courts generally will not interf ere with a district court’s
imposition of a presumptive guidelines sentence. State v. Back , 341 N.W.2d 273, 275
(Minn. 1983); State v. Evenson, 554 N.W.2d 409, 412 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied
(Minn. Oct. 29, 1996).
When considering whether to depart durationally, a sentencing court must compare
the act with other acts constituting the same offense. State v. Behl, 573 N.W.2d 711, 713
(Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Mar. 19, 1998). We will affirm a presumptive
sentence when the record shows that the sentencing court carefu lly evaluated all the

5
testimony and information presente d before making a determinati on. Johnson, 831
N.W.2d at 925. “However, the district court is not required to explain its reasons for
imposing a presumptive sentence.” Id.
Appellant argues that we must reverse his guidelines sentence b ecause the district
court abused its discretion by denying both a dispositional and a durational departure based
solely on offender-related factors.
The record does not support appellant’s argument. Most of the discussion at the
sentencing hearing focused on a ppellant’s dispositional-departure argument. The district
court first addressed that ar gument, and its discussion of appe llant’s criminal history and
alcohol abuse was in response to appellant’s argument for a dispositional departure.
After denying appellant’s request for a dispositional departure , the district court
turned to the state’s durationa l-departure argument. The distr ict court noted that it could
“appreciate what the state said about this case in particular” but that it would “go to the
bottom of the box as recognition of [appellant’s] acceptance of responsibility and
[appellant’s] less-active role, rather than actually departing, just given the other
information in the PSI.” After acknowledging that appellant’s less-serious conduct might
warrant a departure, the district court decided that the 33-mon th presumptive guidelines
sentence at the “bottom of the box” was an appropriate sentence.
The district court had no further obligation to specify its rea son for imposing a
presumptive guidelines sentence. See State v. Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d 77, 80 (Minn. App.
1985) (stating that no explanation is required when the district court considers reasons for
departure but elects to impose a presumptive sentence). A district court need not depart in

6
every case where a mitigating factor is present. State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251, 253-54
(Minn. App. 2011). In order to depart, a district court must n ot only identify a factor
supporting departure; it must determine the circumstances suppo rting departure to be
substantial and compelling. Min n . S e n t . G u i d e l i n e s 2 . D . 1 ( 2 0 1 6). The district court
implicitly found, after it considered all of the arguments, that the identified circumstances
to support a departure were not substantial and compelling. Th e district court’s decision
to impose a bottom-of-the-box guidelines sentence is within its discretion.
Affirmed.