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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-0316

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Jairo Manuel Medina-Acosta,
Appellant.

Filed February 3, 2020
Affirmed
Cochran, Judge

Stearns County District Court
File No. 73-CR-18-1250

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

Janelle P. Kendall, Stearns County Attorney, Kyle R. Triggs, Assistant County Attorney,
St. Cloud, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Lydia Villa lva Lijó, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and
Cochran, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
COCHRAN, Judge
In this direct appeal from a judgment of conviction for firs t-degree burglary and
felony domestic assault, appellant Jairo Ma nuel Medina-Acosta argues that the district

2
court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a downward durational sentencing
departure. Because the district court di d not abuse its discretion when it denied
Medina-Acosta’s motion, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Jairo Manuel Medina-Acosta wa s initially charged w ith first-degree
burglary under Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 1(c) (2016) (count one) and
gross-misdemeanor domestic assault of his wife under Minn. Stat. § 609.2242,
subd. 2 (2016) (count two). Due to a prior offense, the state later amended count two to a
felony domestic assault charge under Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 4 (2016). The case
proceeded to a jury trial.
At trial, several witnesses testified, in cluding Medina-Acosta. Trial testimony
established that on the day of the offense, Medina-Acosta went to the house where his
estranged-wife and her parents lived. He went to the house to inform his wife’s parents
that their school-aged son (wife’s brother) was ill at school and needed to be picked up.
Medina-Acosta’s wife, the couple’s two-year-old son, and her parents were all at the house
when he arrived. Medina-Acosta attempted to open the door but a chain-lock was engaged.
Several witnesses testified that Medina-Acosta then kicked the door to get inside the house.
And his wife testified that once inside, Medina-Acosta pushed her “very hard” to the floor.
On that date, there was a no-contact order in place that prohibited Medina-Acosta from
contacting his wife or going to her residence.
The jury ultimately found Medina-Acosta guilty of both counts. The district court
accepted the verdicts and scheduled a sentenci ng hearing. The court also ordered a

3
presentence investigation (PSI). The PSI indi cated that, based on his criminal history
score, Medina-Acosta faced a presumptiv e 98-month prison sentence for the felony
burglary count and a 24-month prison sentence for the felony domestic-assault count.
The PSI focused on whether there were grounds to support a dispositional departure.
The report recommended that the district c ourt impose the presumptive sentence for both
counts because Medina-Acosta had a “significa nt criminal history” with a “history of
probation violations” and was in “the highest risk category for domestic recidivism.” The
PSI agent later filed a PSI addendum focusing on whether there were grounds to support a
durational departure, including whether the burglary offense was less serious than the
typical offense. The agent concluded that there did not appear to be any circumstance that
would warrant a durational departure.
Before the sentencing hearing, Medi na-Acosta filed a motion and supporting
memorandum requesting a sentencing departur e. Medina-Acosta requested a downward
dispositional departure or, in th e alternative, a downward durational departure. The state
did not file a response.
At the sentencing hearing, Medina-Acosta argued that a dispositional departure was
warranted because he is amenable to probation, he has a support system through his family
and church, and he has been successful in programming in the pa st. Alternatively,
Medina-Acosta argued that a durational departure was warranted because his offense was
less serious than typical, he showed remorse, he was not the aggressor, his father-in-law
assaulted him, and he is not a danger to societ y. The state opposed any departure. With
regard to the dispositional departure, the state argued that Medina-Acosta is not amenable

4
to probation, that he has a consistent histor y of violating probation, and that he did not
show remorse. With regard to the durationa l departure, the state argued that the offense
was more serious than the typical offens e because Medina-Acosta had prior domestic
assault charges concerning his wife, Medina -Acosta pushed his wife in front of their
two-year-old son, and Medina-Acosta fled from police after the incident.
Ultimately, the district court found that “[ t]here is nothing befo re me that I think
supports a substantial and compelling finding . . . to depart either dispositionally or
durationally in this case.” The district court then imposed the presumptive sentences under
the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines of 98 months in prison for count one, and 24 months
for count two, to run concurrently.
Medina-Acosta appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Medina-Acosta contends that the district c ourt abused its discretion in denying his
motion for a durational departure from the sentencing guidelines. 1 H e a r g u e s t h a t a
downward durational departur e is supported by the record because his offense was
significantly less serious than a typical first-degree burglary and domestic assault case, and
that the district court failed to provide adequate reasons for denying his motion for a
durational departure. The state argues that th e district court was not required to provide

1 The only argument that Medina -Acosta makes in this appeal is that the district court
abused its discretion by denying his motion for a downward durational departure. He does
not challenge the district court’s decision to deny his motion for a downward dispositional
departure.

5
specific reasons for denying Medina-Acosta’s request for a departure because the court
sentenced within the guidelines.
The Minnesota Sentencing Guid elines establish presump tive sentences for felony
offenses. Minn. Stat. § 244.09, subd. 5 (2018). A sentence prescribed under the Minnesota
Sentencing Guidelines is pres umed to be appropriate. State v. Soto , 855 N.W.2d 303,
308 (Minn. 2014). A district court may depart fro m the presumptively appropriate
guidelines sentence only if “identifiable, s ubstantial, and compelling circumstances”
warrant doing so. State v. Solberg, 882 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).
However, even if mitigating factors are present, the district court is not obligated to depart
from the guidelines. State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006). We “afford the
[district] court great discretion in the im position of sentences and reverse sentencing
decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 307-08 (quotation
omitted).
Here, the district court imposed the presumptive guidelines sentence for both counts.
When the district court imposes a presumptiv e sentence, this court will not interfere “as
long as the record shows th e sentencing court carefully ev aluated all the testimony and
information presented before making a determination.” State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251,
255 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted). An explanation is not required when the court
considers reasons for departure but imposes a presumptive sentence. State v. Van Ruler ,
378 N.W.2d 77, 80 (Minn. App. 1985).
The record in this case s hows that the district court carefully and deliberately
considered all of the testimony and information presented before making its determination.

6
At the sentencing hearing, the court confirmed that it “reviewed all . . . documents.” The
documents included, among others, Medina-Acosta’s legal memorandum in support of his
motion for a departure and the PSI addendum that specifically addressed a durational
departure. The court also oversaw the en tire trial and heard departure arguments from
Medina-Acosta’s attorney an d Medina-Acosta himself. Ba sed on all of the relevant
information, the district court found that th ere was no support in th e record for either a
dispositional or durational departure. The court determined that “on the contrary all of the
facts in front of [the district court] support that . . . the [presumptiv e] sentence under the
guidelines . . . is appropriate.” Having carefully considered the relevant information in the
record, the district court acted within its discretion when it sentenced Medina-Acosta to the
presumptive sentence for each count.
While acknowledging that district courts have broad discretion in sentencing
decisions, Medina-Acosta argues that the dist rict court’s decision should be reversed
because his offense was significantly less serious than the typical offense. See
State v. Herrmann, 479 N.W.2d 724, 728 (Minn. App. 1992) (noting that, in issuing a
durational departure, a district court must consider whether the defendant’s conduct was
“significantly more or less seri ous than that typically involved in the commission of the
crime in question” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. March 19, 1992). But, even
if mitigating factors are present, the district court is not obligated to depart from the
guidelines. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d at 668. Further, the record suggests that Medina-Acosta’s
offense was actually more serious, not less seri ous, than the typical offense. The district

7
court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected his request for a downward departure on
this basis.
Medina-Acosta also contends that the district court improperly considered his lack
of remorse and lack of insight when deciding whether to grant his request for a downward
durational departure. He argues that these factors are only relevant to a request for a
dispositional departure, not to a request fo r a durational departure. While remorse
generally bears on whether a di spositional departure is approp riate, a “lack of remorse
could relate back” to the seriousness of th e offense to support an upward durational
departure. State v. McGee, 347 N.W.2d 802, 806 n. 1 (Minn. 1984). And, the record shows
that the district court addressed these factor s because they were raised by Medina-Acosta
himself during his argument in support of his request for a departure. The district court did
not abuse its discretion when it considered these factors.
In sum, we conclude that because the di strict court completed a careful evaluation
of the record and fully considered Medina-A costa’s legal arguments in support of his
request for a downward durational departure, the district court did not abuse its discretion
when it imposed the presumptive guidelines sentence for both counts.
Affirmed.