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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-2057

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Stevevontae Dellshawn Champion,
Appellant.

Filed November 18, 2019
Affirmed
Hooten, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-17-18718

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

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Brittany D. Lawonn, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Hooten,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
HOOTEN, Judge
In this direct appeal from final judgment of conviction and sentence for second -
degree intentional murder, appellant challenges his sentence, arguing that the district court

2
abused its discretion by imposing a sentence at the top of the presumptive sentencing range.
We affirm.
FACTS
On May 11, 2017, Minneapolis Police Department officers responded to a reported
shooting in north Minneapolis. The officers found R.E., an adult male, lying in the street
with a bullet wound in his chest. By the time paramedics arrived, R.E. had died.
Witnesses told officers that, just prior to the shooting, they saw a light-blue minivan
with the rear sliding door open drive through the intersection next to where R.E. was shot.
Witnesses saw a man, who was later identified as appellant Stevevontae Champion, in the
backseat, wearing a ski mask and holding a gun. Nearby officers saw a van matching th e
description and pursued it. When officers pulled the van over, Champion fled from the
vehicle. Officers pursued him on foot but did not apprehend him.
In the van, o fficers found a .40 -caliber gun and a black ski mask. At the scene of
the shooting, they found nine shell casings that the crime lab determined matched the .40-
caliber gun found in the van. DNA collec ted from the gun and the ski mask matched
Champion’s DNA.
The state charged Champion with second -degree murder, with intent and without
premeditation, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2016). The state later amended
the complaint, charging Champion with four additional counts of second -degree assault
with a dangerous weapon under Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1 (2016).
In August 2018, Champion pleaded guilty to second -degree murder, and the state
agreed to dismiss the other four charges. As part of his plea deal, the state agreed to

3
withdraw its motion for an upward sentencing departure, and the parties agreed to a
sentence within the presumptive range. Based on Champion’s criminal -history score of
one point, the presumptive sentencing ra nge was 278 to 391 months. See Minn. Sent.
Guidelines 4.A (2016).
At the sentencing hearing, the state requested a sentence of 391 months, the top of
the presumptive sentencing range. The presentence investigation report stated, “As the
defendant fired his weapon nine times into a crowd of people, this offense appears more
onerous, and the court may consider a sentence at the upper end of the box.” Champion
requested the bot tom of the range, 278 months. After hearing from both parties and the
victim’s family, the district court stated:
Mr. Champion, I reviewed everything that’s been submitted to
me, and I reviewed this file carefully. And I don’t take any
pleasure in sentencing you, a young man, today. But,
nevertheless, today is your sentencing da y because a 41-year-
old man is dead, and you, now a 22 -year-old man, are
responsible for that death. And that makes you, Mr.
Champion, a major risk to public safety.
So as I understand this case, this occurred mid -day,
there was an eight year old, among others, playing outside in
the middle of the day, and nine shots, at least, were fired. And
you fired those shots and fled in a van that contained at least,
from the Complaint, one juvenile.
And as I understand it, . . . witnesses say that the van
drove around the block once before this happened. So, this was
at least the second time around.
Ski mask, nine shots fired from a semi -automatic, and
as you well know, that means pulling the trigger nine times.

After giving this explanation, the district court sentenced Champion to 391 months.
This appeal follows.

4
D E C I S I O N
In this direct appeal, Champion argues that the district court abused its discretion by
imposing a sentence at the top of the presumptive range because the district court did not
consider his remorse, acceptance of responsibility for his crime, and minimal criminal
history as mitigating factors. A defendant may directly appeal from final judgment and
raise only a sentencing issue. State v. Thomas, 371 N.W.2d 533, 534–35 (Minn. 1985).
“All three numbers in any given cell [on the sentencing guidelines grid] constitute
an acceptable sentence based solely on the offense at issue and the offender’s criminal
history score —the lowest is not a downward departure, nor is the highest an upward
departure.” State v. Jackson , 749 N.W.2d 353, 359 n.2 (Minn. 2008). “[W]e generally
will not interfere with sentences that are within the presumptive sentence range.” State v.
Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn. 1982). While we may, in our discretion, mo dify a
sentence that is within the presumptive range, “we generally will not exercise that authority
absent compelling circumstances.” Id. “Only in a ‘rare’ case will a reviewing court reverse
imposition of a presumptive sentence.” State v. Delk, 781 N.W.2d 426, 428 (Minn. App.
2010) (quoting State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981)), review denied (Minn. July
20, 2010).
Champion argues that compelling circumstances exist to modify his sentence
because the district court failed to cite relevant m itigating factors when it sentenced him .
Champion argues that his remorse, acceptance of responsibility, and minimal criminal
history, despite his difficult upbringing, are mitigating factors that warrant a lower
sentence.

5
While Champion cites to prop er mitigating factors, the Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines provide these mitigating factors for district courts to determine whether to grant
a downward departure, not for imposing a sentence within the presumptive range. See
Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.D.3.a (2016). When a district court sentences within the
presumptive range, it is not required to “ explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive
sentence.” State v. Johnson , 831 N.W.2d 917, 925 (Minn. App. 2013), review denied
(Minn. Sept. 17, 2013). And we affirm a presumptive sentence when “the record shows
that the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented
before making a determination.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Here, the district court considered the fol lowing circumstances when executing
Champion’s sentence: (1) the crime occurred midday, (2) an eight -year-old child was
present, (3) the van circled the block at least once before Champion began firing, (4)
Champion, while wearing a ski mask, fired at least nine shots into a crowd of people, and
(5) Champion fled from the scene and the police. Based on these circumstances, the district
court found Champion to be a threat to public safety. The district court was well within its
discretion when it sentenced Champion to 391 months, which was within the presumptive
range. This case is not one of the rare cases in which compelling circumstances exist to
modify the district court’s sentence.
Affirmed.