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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-1873

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Anthony Jefferson,
Appellant.

Filed October 26, 2020
Affirmed
Frisch, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-18-15358

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

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Adam E. Petras , Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, C hief Appellate Public Defender, Amy Lawler, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Schellhas,
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
FRISCH, Judge
In this direct appeal following his conviction of felony driving while under the
influence of alcohol, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying
his motion for a downward dispositional departure from the Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines. We affirm.
FACTS
On June 15, 2018, law enforcement stopped appellant Anthony Jefferson for
speeding on I-94 in the Twin Cities metro area. Jefferson failed multiple field sobriety
tests and was arrested for driving while impaired. The state charged Jefferson with a single
count of felony driving while under the influence of alcohol. See Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.20,
subd. 1(1), .24, subd. 1(1) (2016). On June 5, 2019, Jefferson pleaded guilty. The district
court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) and continued the case for a sentencing
hearing. The PSI recommended the presumptive guideline s sentence of 60 months ’
imprisonment. Jefferson moved for a downward dispositional d eparture from the
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines . The district court denied the motion and imposed the
presumptive guidelines sentence. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Jefferson argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion
for a downward dispositional departure from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.
“Whether to depart from the guidelines rests within the district court’s discretion, and this
court will not reverse the decision absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Olson,

3
765 N.W.2d 662, 664 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted) . “[A] sentencing court can
exercise its discretion to depart from the guidelines only if aggravating or mitigating
circumstances are present, and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling
reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 308 (Minn.
2014) (quotations and citations omitted). We “generally will not interfere with sentences
that are within the presumptive sentence range.” State v. Freyer , 328 N.W.2d 140, 142
(Minn. 1982). “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).
A downward disp ositional departure “ occurs when the [sentencing g] uidelines
recommend a prison sentence but the court stays the sentence. ” Minn. Sent. Guidelines
1.B.5.a.(2) ( Supp. 2017 ). The district court must find the defendant is particularly
amenable to probation to justify a dispositional departure in the form of a stay of execution
of a presumptively executed sentence. Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 308-09. “Departures from the
presumptive sentence are justified only when substantial and compelling circumstances are
present in the record.” State v. Jackson, 749 N.W.2d 353, 360 (Minn. 2008). The district
court may consider the age of the defendant, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation,
his attitude in court, and the support of family and friends in determining p articular
amenability to probation. State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982). Although the
district court has discretion to grant a downward dispositional departure where a defendant
is particularly amenable to probation, “ it is not required to do s o.” Olson, 765 N.W.2d at
664-65.

4
Jefferson argues that he is particularly amenable to individualized treatment in a
probationary setting because he is remorseful, acknowledged his alcohol problem ,
cooperated by attending all court hearings and probation appointments, and is respectful in
tone and demeanor.
The district court considered and acknowledged the basis for the departure motion,
analyzed the Trog factors, and concluded that a downward dispositional departure was not
appropriate. In so doing, t he district court found that Jefferson denied responsibility for
his actions during his probation interview, that Jefferson committed the offense while he
was on probation, and that Jefferson amassed repeated violations of probationary
conditions, among ot her concerns expressed by the district court. We see no abuse of
discretion in the district court finding that Jefferson was not particularly amendable to
probation or imposing the presumptive guidelines sentence.
Affirmed.