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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A20-0119

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Christian Hamzah Coleman,
Appellant.

Filed December 21, 2020
Affirmed
Frisch, Judge

St. Louis County District Court
File No. 69DU-CR-19-932

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

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

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Kathryn J. Lockwood, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and
Frisch, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
FRISCH, Judge
Appellant challenges his executed sentences for multiple offenses, arguing that the
district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a downward dispos itional

2
departure and by executing the sentence for criminal sexual conduct consecutively to the
other sentences. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Christian Hamzah Coleman pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting crimes
of false imprisonment, Minn. Stat. § 609.25, subd. 1(2) (2018); first-degree criminal sexual
conduct, Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(c) (2018); and three counts of first -degree
burglary, Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 1(c) (2018), for an incident involving multiple
victims and codefendants on March 13, 2019. See also Minn. Stat. § 609.05, subd. 1 (2018)
(setting forth aiding and abetting liability). He was 18 years old at the time he committed
the offenses and had a criminal-history score of zero. Although he admitted to participating
in the actions underlying the charges, he claimed that his codefendants were the primary
instigators of the assaults and false imprisonment that occurred during the burglary.
The district court accepted Coleman’s pleas, and the matter proceeded to sentencing.
The presentence investigation (PSI) report recommended concurrent, executed sentences
within the presumptive ranges set forth in the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. Coleman
moved for a downward dispositional departure from the presumptive sentencing range s
and sought a stay of execution of his sentence s conditioned on his compliance with
probationary conditions. The state opposed Coleman’s motion and requested a consecutive
sentence for the aiding and abetting criminal-sexual-conduct conviction.
The district court reviewed the parties’ written argument s and exhibits and held a
hearing, during which the district court received additional evidence and testimony. After
hearing additional argument from both parties, the district court denied Coleman’s motion

3
for a dispositional departure, imposed sentences within the presumptive guidelines ranges,
and granted the state’s motion for a consecutive sentence. Coleman appeals.
D E C I S I O N
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Coleman’s motion for
a downward dispositional departure.
Coleman argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion
for a downward dispositional departure from the Min nesota Sentencing Guidelines. A
downward dispositional departure occurs when the sentencing guidelines recommend
imprisonment but the district court stays execution of the sentence on conditions of
probation. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 1.B.5.a.(2) (201 8). To justify a departure, a district
court must find mitigating circumstances that “provide a substantial and compelling reason
not to impose a guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , 855 N.W.2d 303, 308 (Minn. 2014)
(quotation omitted). Mitigating circumstances may exist when a district court find s that
the defendant is particularly amenable to probation . Id. at 308-09. In finding particular
amenability to probation, a district court may consider the defendant ’s age, prior record,
remorse, cooperation, attitude in court, and support of family and friends . State v. Trog,
323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982). And even if a district court determines that a defendant
is particularly amenable to probation , a district court retains discretion to deny the
departure. State v. Olson, 765 N.W.2d 662, 664-65 (Minn. App. 2009).
We will not reverse a refusal to depart absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id. at 664.
We “generally will not interfere with sentences that are within the presumptive [guidelines]
range,” State v. Freyer , 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn. 1982), and reverse imposition of

4
presumptive sentences only in “rare” cases, 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).
Coleman argues that the district court failed to adequately consider evidence that he
is particularly amenable to probation. He cites State v. Curtiss, in which we remanded and
held that the district court erred in denying the motion because “[t]he record suggest [ed]
factors for departure” that the district court failed to “deliberately consider[].” 353 N.W.2d
262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984) .1 But in Curtiss, the topic of departure “was abandoned”
before the district court had an opportunity to exercise its broad discretion. Id. at 263. By
contrast, here the district court reviewed all of the evidence Coleman presented, heard
testimony from Coleman and one of the victims, considered the attorneys’ written and oral
arguments, and then made a deliberate decision not to cr edit Coleman’s evidence.
Although the district court could have —and perhaps best practices suggest that it should

1 Coleman cites additional cases in which district courts failed to adequately consider
reasons for departure, but those cases are inapposite. In State v. Wall , the district court
imposed an upward durational departure after declining to consider the defendant’s mental
impairment, erroneously implying that the defendant’s failure to take medication for
schizophrenia was analogous to voluntary intoxication despite expert testimony that refusal
to take medication is itself a symptom of the disease. 343 N.W.2d 22, 24-26 (Minn. 1984).
And in State v. Mendoza , the record was unclear as to whether the district court made a
deliberate decision to impose a presumptive sentence for two defendants because the
district court erroneously concluded that the defendants ’ immigration status es rendered
probation “impossible and impractical .” 638 N.W.2d 480, 482 -84 (Minn. App. 2002),
review denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2002).

5
have—more thoroughly addressed the factors, its failure to do so was not an abuse of
discretion.2
II. The district court did not abuse its d iscretion by imposing a consecutive
sentence for the aiding and abetting criminal-sexual-conduct conviction.
Coleman next argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the
sentence for aiding and abetting criminal sexual conduct in viola tion of Minn. Sta t.
§§ 609.342, subd. 1(c), .05, subd. 1, consecutively to his sentences for aiding and abetting
kidnapping and first-degree burglary. We review the imposition of consecutive sentences
for an abuse of discretion. State v. Ali , 895 N.W.2d 237, 247 (Minn. 2017). We do not
interfere with this discretion unless “the sentence is disproportionate to the offense or
unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” Id. (quotation omitted).
When an offender is conv icted of multiple current offenses, concurrent sentencing
is generally presumptive. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.F (2018). But a consecutive sentence
for criminal sexual conduct is always permissive when the court imposes punishment for
any other crime the d efendant committed as part of the same conduct. Minn. Sent.
Guidelines 2.F.2.a.(2)(iii).
Coleman does not argue that the consecutive sentences here violate the guidelines.
Rather, he contends that the district court failed to “carefully consider” whether the purpose

2 Coleman additionally argues that the district court improperly focused on offense-related
factors that are more relevant to a durational departure. Although a dispositional departure
is typically based on offender -specific characteristics, State v. Solberg, 882 N.W.2d 618,
623 (Minn. 2016), a district court may consider both offender- and offense-related factors
when deciding whether to grant a dispositional departure, State v. Chaklos , 528 N.W.2d
225, 228 (Minn. 1995).

6
of the guidelines would best be served by consecutive sentences. He relies o n a comment
in the guidelines: “The Commission recommends that the court consider carefully whether
the purposes of the Guidelines (in terms of punishment proportional to the severity of the
offense and the offender’s criminal history) would be served best by concurrent rather than
consecutive sentences.” Minn. Sent. Guidelines cmt. 2.F.01 (emphasis added). He does
not cite any caselaw in which a consecutive sentence has been reversed on this basis.
“[C]omments to the guidelines are not binding but rather are advisory” to the courts.
State v. Rouland, 685 N.W.2d 706, 708 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Nov. 23,
2004). Even so, the record shows that the district court adequately considered whether a
consecutive sentence was proportionate to the severity of Coleman’s aiding and abetting
criminal sexual conduct. After reviewing the facts of the underlying incidents, the district
court found that “[r]eleasing [Coleman] back into the community in any shorter time period
would place the public and the victims at risk and would diminish the seriousness of these
offenses.”
Coleman lists multiple reasons that the consecuti ve sentence unfairly exaggerates
the criminality of his conduct. In part, he reiterates his dispositional-departure arguments
regarding his youth and minimal criminal history. But the presence of such factors alone
do not compel a conclusion that a sentence exaggerates criminality. See Ali, 895 N.W.2d
at 246-47. Coleman argues that his more aggressive codefendant influenced his behavior,
but the supreme court has rejected a similar argument. See State v. Vang, 774 N.W.2d 566,
583-84 (Minn. 2009). Cole man additionally observes that the PSI did not recommend
consecutive sentences. But even if the PSI specifically recommended concurrent

7
sentences, the ultimate decision is within the discretion of the district court —not the
probation officer who wrote the PSI. See Hamilton v. State, 398 N.W.2d 680, 683 (Minn.
App. 1987) ( explaining that district court is not obligated to follow recommendation in
PSI), review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 1987). None of these reasons, considered individually
or together, establish an abuse of discretion by the district court.3
Affirmed.

3 The state asks that we dismiss Coleman’s appeal based on Coleman’s failure to “observe
the timeliness or captioning requirements of Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.05, subd. 1(1).” We
decline to do so where the alleged defects are not jurisdictional and where the state asserts
no prejudice. See State v. Batzer Constr. Co., 445 N.W.2d 281, 282-83 (Minn. App. 1989).