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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-1241

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Christy Lynn Tjaden,
Appellant.

Filed June 22, 2020
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

St. Louis County District Court
File No. 69DU-CR-18-988

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

Mark S. Rubin, St. Louis County Attorney, Victoria Wanta, Assistant County Attorney,
Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Jodi L. Proulx, Special Assistant Public Defender, Stillwater, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SLIETER, Judge
In this direct appeal from her judgment of conviction for aiding and abetting
kidnapping, appellant Christy Lynn Tjaden appeals the district court’s imposition of a

2
presumptive guideline sentence. Because the record shows that the district court carefully
considered Tjaden’s departure motion and imposed a presumptive sentence, we affirm.
FACTS
The state charged Tjaden in an amended complaint with , inter alia , aiding and
abetting kidnapping, in viol ation of Minn. Stat. §§ 609.05, subd. 1, 609.25, subd. 1(3)
(2016). Tjaden and the state entered into a plea agreement which provided, in exchange
for Tjaden’s guilty plea, the state would dismiss the remaining counts in the complaint, the
state would argue that the sentence should be a bottom-of-the-box guideline sentence, and
Tjaden would move for a dispositional departure. Tjaden, as part of the factual basis for
her guilty plea, admitted that she transported the victim against his will in her car with other
accomplices, and that she left the victim in an unsafe location due to the cold weather and
at night in an area with limited traffic. Tjaden also acknowledged that she did not call for
emergency care on the victim’s behalf even though the victim had been assaulted.
Based on Tjaden’s criminal -history score, the presumptive guideline sentence for
aiding and abetting kidnapping recommended an executed prison sentence range of 41 to
57 months. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines 4.A, 5.A ( Supp. 2017). Tjaden moved for a
downward dispositional departure from the sentencing guidelines.
At sentencing and in support of her argument that she is particularly amenable to
probation, Tjaden attempted to distinguish herself from the co-defendants due to her
(1) mental health conditions; (2) limited criminal history; (3) full compliance with pretrial
release; (4) collateral consequences she will experience from the felony conviction; and

3
(5) remorse. The state requested that the district court impose the presumptive guid eline
sentence. The district court explained,
So I’ve sat through this whole thing. I’ve had two trials.
I watched the guy testify. I watched everybody testify.
[Defense counsel] is right. When – when a couple of these
folks got together and got this rolling, it was rolling fast and it
was rolling hard, and it would’ve been hard to tell ‘em no. I
totally see that.
And one or two nos might’ve changed a lot of things,
too. So I’m – I’m caught in the middle again trying to balance
it out. Where I keep landing is this guy, [the victim], was really
messed up. And you and them left him tied in the winter on
that road in the dark to die.
So I’m not gonna depart. I’m going to give you the
forty-one months Commissioner of Corrections. That’s the
low end of the box. That’s less than [one of the co-defendants].
It’s less than [another co -defendant] by far. It’s less than
[another co-defendant] by far. It’s more than the seventeen -
year-old who wasn’t involved in the kidnapping and didn’t
leave him to die. So I don’t know where that lands, but it seems
– it seems like that’s a fair – that’s a fair balancing.

The district court therefore denied Tjaden’s motion and sentenced Tjaden to a 41-month
executed prison sentence. Tjaden appeals the sentence.
D E C I S I O N
The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a presumptive
guideline sentence.

Tjaden argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion for
a dispositional departure because she is particularly amenable to probation. Appellate
courts “‘afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences’ and
reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” See State v. Soto ,

4
855 N.W.2d 303, 307 -08 ( Minn. 2014) (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Spain ,
590 N.W.2d 85, 88 (Minn. 1999)).
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines “ prescrib[e] a sentence or range that is
presumed to be appropriate.” Id. at 308 (quotation omitted). And a district “court must
pronounce a sentence of the app licable disposition and within the applicable range unless
there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.”
Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.1 (Supp. 2017).
A district court may exercise its discretion to depart from the guidelines only if there
are “substantial, and compelling circumstances that distinguish a case and overcome the
presumption in favor of the guideline s sentence .” Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 308 (quotation
omitted). “In fact, a sentencing court has no discre tion to depart from the sentencing
guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating factors are present.” Spain, 590 N.W.2d at 88.
When circumstances justify departing, a district court must exercise its discretion to
consider those circumstances. State v. K ier, 678 N.W.2d 672, 677 (Minn. App. 2004),
review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004). “[T]he presence of mitigating factors does not
obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the
presumptive term.” Wells v. State , 839 N.W.2d 775, 781 (Minn. App. 2013) (second
alteration in original) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb. 18, 2014).
“This court will not generally review a district court’s exercise of its discretion to
sentence a defendant when the sentence im posed is within the presumptive guidelines
range.” State v. Delk, 781 N.W.2d 426, 428 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. July
20, 2010). “We will affirm the imposition of a presumptive guidelines sentence when ‘the

5
record shows [that] the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and
information presented before making a determination.’” State v. Johnson , 831 N.W.2d
917, 925 (Minn. App. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Van Ruler ,
378 N.W.2d 77, 81 (Minn. App. 1985)), review denied (Minn. Sept. 17, 2013). Moreover,
“the district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive
sentence.” Id.
A district court may grant a departure when an “offender is particularly amenable
to probation.” Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.a.(7) ( Supp. 2017). The particularly -
amenable standard “ensure[s] that the defendant’s amenability to probation distinguishes
the defendant from others and truly presents the substantial[] and compelling circumstances
that are necessary to justify a departure.” Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 309 ( second alteration in
original) (quotation omitted). The supreme court recognized considerations for an
offender’s particular amenability that “includ[e] the defendant’s age, his prior record, his
remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or
family.” State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982). These factors, however, are not
the only factors that may impact a defendant’s amenability to probation and may not be
relevant in some cases. Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 310. Even if a defendant establishes that she
is amenable to probation, the district court is not required to depart. State v. Olson ,
765 N.W.2d 662, 664-65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[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.”).

6
The record shows that the district court carefully considered the departure motion.
At the start of the sentencing hearing, the district court identified that it read the presentence
investigation and Tjaden’s departure motion. The district court heard arguments from the
state and Tjaden’s counsel, and the district court heard from Tjaden. After considering the
above information, the district court determined that it was not appropriate to depart and
imposed the presumptive guideline sentence. In doing so, the district court properly
exercised its discretion by imposing the guidelines sentence. See Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d
at 80-81 (“The reviewing court may not interfere with the sentencing court ’s exercise of
discretion, as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the
testimony and information presented before making a determination.”).
Affirmed.