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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-2130

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Jeffrey Varlyn Sharp,
Appellant.

Filed December 16, 2019
Affirmed
Hooten, Judge

St. Louis County District Court
File No. 69DU-CR-18-1574

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

Mark S. Rubin, St. Louis County Attorney, Gary W. Bjorklund, Assistant County Attorney,
Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Ap pellate Public Defender, Erik I . Withall, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and
Kirk, Judge.

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
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 the judgment of conviction for first-degree criminal sexual
conduct, appellant argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for a downward
dispositional departure because it failed to make specific findings on the mitigating factors
presented by appellant in support of the motion. We affirm.
FACTS
On May 18, 2018, appellant Jeffrey Varlyn Sharp was charged with two counts of
first-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(b)
(2018), and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in violation of Minn.
Stat. § 260B.425, subd. 1(a) (2018). The complaint alleged that Sharp sexually abused his
14-year-old step daughter in August 2016 and in January 2017. The complaint further
alleged that during both incidents Sharp had provided the victim with marijuana and
digitally and orally penetrated her.
Sharp pleaded guilty to one count of first -degree criminal sexual conduct . In
exchange, the state dismissed all remaining charges. Sharp’s presumptive sentence for one
count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct is 144 to 172 months. Minn. Sent. Guidelines
4.B. (2018).
Sharp filed a motion and supporting documents requesting a downward
dispositional departure from the presumptive sentence range because of mitigating factors.
The mitigating factors Sharp cited included his age (47), his lack of a prior record, his
remorse, and cooperation during the proceedings.

3
A sentencing hearing was held on September 28, 2018. Prior to any testimony, the
district court noted that it had reviewed all the prepared materials, including Sharp’s motion
for a downward dispositional departure . After hearing testimony from the victim and the
victim’s mother, who both requested that Sharp be sentenced to a prison term, the district
court denied Sharp’s motion for a downward dispositional departure and sentenced him to
144 months imprisonment. The district stated:
I can’t. I’m going to send you to prison. I don’t find
substantial and compelling [circumstances]. I appreciate your
cooperation. I appreciate everything you’ve done. But I think
this is prison.
I’m going to go with the 144 [months] which is the
recommended sentence. . . . If you take the insight and
commitment that you’re expressing today into the system and
work the program you can have a good outcome , but it ain’t
going to be easy. . . . I’m not imposing a fine. I don’t need
. . . your money. I need you to do the time and figure out how
to correct it through the . . . resources at the Commissioner.

This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Sharp argues that the district court erred when it failed to make specific findings
that addressed his offender-specific mitigating factors, including his age, his lack of a prior
criminal record, his remorse, and his cooperation and attitude while in court.
A district court may pronounce a sentence that departs from the presumptive range
established in the sentencing guidelines when substantial and compelling circumstances
exist that justify the departure . Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.1.c (2018); see also State v.
Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 308 (Minn. 2014) (noting that a district court abuses its discretion
when it departs from the sentencing guidelines unless it determines that “identifiable,

4
substantial and compell ing circumstances” exist to justify a departure). “We will not
generally review a district court’s exercise of its discretion to sentence a defendant when
the sentence imposed is within the presumptive guidelines range.” State v. Delk , 781
N.W.2d 426, 428 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010). Only a rare
case will cause an appellate court to reverse a district court’s refusal to depart from the
presumptive sentencing guidelines. State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981).
In State v. Trog , the supreme court outlined w hat factors a district court may
consider when determining whether to depart from a presumptive sentence, which include
“the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in
court, and the support of friends and/or family.” 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982). Sharp
argues that the district court did not address all of his mitigating factors and instead merely
acknowledged the factors when it denied his motion for a downward dispositional
departure. Sharp asks us to reverse and remand to the district court because the district
court failed to address all the factors, creating an allegedly insuf ficient record for us to
review.
Sharp is correct that the district court did not specifically address all of the
mitigating factors he presented when it denied his motion . But the district court is not
required to provide a defendant with an explanation when it refuses to impose a downward
dispositional departure. State v. Johnson, 831 N.W.2d 917, 925 (Minn. App. 2013), review
denied (Minn. Sept. 17, 2013). “Although the trial court is required to give reasons for
departure, an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure
but elects to impose the presumptive sentence .” State v. Van Ruler , 378 N. W.2d 77, 80

5
(Minn. App. 1985). “[A]s long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated
all the testimony and information presented before making a determination ,” a reviewing
court must not interfere. Id. at 81; see also State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 263 (Minn.
App. 1984) (noting that no written explanation is needed when a district court elects to
impose a presumptive sentence rather than a downward departure).
Here, the district court evaluated all of the evidence when it made it s decision not
to depart from the presumptive range. Prior to Sharp’s sentencing hearing, the district court
noted that it had reviewed: (1) Sharp’s psychosexual report; (2) Sharp’s presentence
investigation; (3) Sharp’s motion for a downward dispositional departure, which included
a memorandum in support of the motion and a recidivism report; (4) the state’s brief; and
(5) Sharp’s Chemical Use Assessment. The district court also considered the victim impact
statements from the victim and the victim’s mother. Based on all of the information before
it, the district court determined that there were no substantial or compelling circumstances
that would warrant a downward dispositional departure and sentenced Sharp to 144 months
imprisonment. Although the district court did not address each mitigating factor
individually, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the
factors and concluding that they did not support a downward dispositional departure.
We are not persuaded by Sharp’s contention that our review of the district court’s
exercise of discretion is limited because of the district court’s silence on the motion for a
downward departure. The district court was not required to explain its reasoning for
imposing a presumptive sentence. Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d at 80. Rather, all that is required
is a showing that the district court carefully considered the circumstances and determined

6
that departure was not appropriate. State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251, 255 (Minn. App. 2011)
(quotations omitted). T he district court met this burden by noting that it had carefully
reviewed all the materials submitted by both parties and determined that departure from
the presumptive sentence was not warranted.
Because the district court was not required to explain its reasons for denying Sharp’s
motion for a downward dispositional departure , the district court did not abuse its
discretion by imposing a presumptive sentence.
Affirmed.