State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-0471

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Jacob Winston Eckman,
Appellant.

Filed March 28, 2022
Affirmed
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Becker County District Court
File No. 03-CR-19-2718

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

Brian W. McDonald, Becker County Attorney, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Christopher Mishek, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Ju dge; Reilly, Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
Appellant Jacob Winston Eckman argues that the district court abused its discretion
by denying his motion for a downward dispositional departure from the presumptive prison
2
sentence because, he argues, the record shows that he is particularly amenable to probation
and treatment. We affirm.
FACTS
Eckman pleaded guilty to and was convicted of sec ond-degree criminal sexual
conduct against his then four-y ear-old cousin under Minn. St at. § 609.343, subd. 1(h)(i)
(2016). At sentencing, Eckman moved for a downward dispositional departure consisting
of a one-year sentence to the local jail followed by probation with sex-offender treatment
and therapy. The district court denied Eckman ’s motion, concluding that there were not
substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the sentencing guidelines, and sentenced
Eckman to the presumptive 90 months of imprisonment. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines 4.B
& 5.A (Supp. 2017).
Eckman appeals.
DECISION
District courts are afforded “great di scretion in the imposition of sentences,” and
appellate courts will reverse a sentencing decision “only for an abuse of that discretion.”
State v. Soto , 855 N.W.2d 303, 307- 08 (Minn. 2014) (quotatio n omitted). The sentences
provided in the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelin es are presumed to be appropriate. Minn.
Sent. Guidelines 2.D.1 (Supp. 2017). When a district court imposes a presumptive
sentence, an appellate court “may not interfer e with the [district court’s] exercise of
discretion, as long as the record shows that [t he district court] carefully evaluated all the
testimony and information presented before making a determination.” State v. Van Ruler,
378 N.W.2d 77, 80-81 (M inn. App. 1985). Only in a “rar e case” will an appellate court
3
reverse the district court’s refusal to depart from the presumptive sentence. State v. Kindem,
313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981).
A district court may depart from the gui delines sentence only “if aggravating or
mitigating circumstances are present, and t hose circumstances provide a substantial and
compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 308
(quotations and citations omitted); see also Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.1 (stating that a
district court “must” sentence within the guid elines range “unless there exist identifiable,
substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure”). But even if substantial
and compelling circumstances exist, a district court is not required to depart from the
guidelines. State v. Walker, 913 N.W.2d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018) (citing Kindem, 313
N.W.2d at 7); see also State v. Wall , 343 N.W.2d 22, 25 (Minn. 1984) (stating that the
presence of a mitigating factor does not obligate a district court “to place defendant on
probation”); Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.1 (stating that a district court “may” depart from
the presumptive disposition).
A dispositional departure “places the offend er in a different setting than that called
for by the presumptive guidelines sentence.” State v. Solberg, 882 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Minn.
2016). Substantial and compelling circumstan ces justifying a downward dispositional
departure “include a finding that a defendant is particularly amenable to correction on
probation and unamenable to correction by imprisonment.” State v. Malinski, 353 N.W.2d
207, 209 (Minn. App. 1984), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 16, 1984); see also Minn. Sent.
Guidelines 2.D.3.a.7 (Supp. 2017). Amen ability “to individualized treatment in a
probationary setting” will justify a finding of amenability to probation and thus a
4
dispositional departure. State v. Trog , 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982); see also Minn.
Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.a.7. Under Trog, several factors are relevant to determining whether
a defendant is “particularly suitable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
323 N.W.2d at 31 . These 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.” Id.
Eckman asserts that he is particularly amenable to treatment in a probationary
setting under Trog because he was only 21 years old at the time of sentencing, this was his
first criminal offense, he showed remorse a nd cooperated with the legal process, and he
has support from family and medical professionals. He additionally argues that he proved
he can follow treatment-like programming based on his past experience, citing State v.
Gebeck, 635 N.W.2d 385 (M inn. App. 2001), a case in which a defendant was found
amenable to probation based in part on her past success in treatment. Further, Eckman
argues that he is particularly unamenable to treatment in prison based on his medical,
psychiatric, and social history.
Though Eckman cites to seve ral factors that may support a determination that he is
particularly suitable to treatment in a probationary setting, these factors do not compel the
conclusion that the district court abused its discretion by denying a downward dispositional
departure. The record reflects that the district court carefully considered all of the relevant
information presented to it. At the sentencing hearing, the district court noted that it had
reviewed, in some cases “multiple times,” the relevant documents submitted. These
documents included the presentence investiga tion, a psychosexual evaluation, Eckman’s
motion for departure and a supporting memorand um from a dispositional advisor, and
5
correspondence from Eckman’s mother. The district court also heard victim-impact
statements from the victim’s parents and arguments from counsel. In rendering its
sentencing decision, the district court stated:
Mr. Eckman, I understand that you’ve had a difficult
and a trying childhood. I’ve take n that into consideration
together with arguments of counsel here today.

Mr. Eckman, I am not persuaded that they represent
substantial and compelling re asons to depart from the
sentencing guidelines that have been established for this
offense.

Mr. Eckman, this Court is concerned with protecting
public safety and following the Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines and where this Court finds substantial and
compelling reasons the Court may depart. I don’t see that there
are substantial or compelling reasons or that those reasons that
have been submitted rise to the level of substantial or
compelling.

And, Mr. Eckman, you have pleaded guilty to sexually
penetrating a four-year-old child. And the legislature has
established sentencing guidelines for the conduct that you’ve
pleaded guilty to, an d I’m going to follow through with the
sentencing guidelines in this instance.

We, too, have reviewed the relevant doc uments and the testimony. Based on that
review and the district court’s full consideration of the record, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion by denying Eckman’s motion for a downward
dispositional departure, despite the presen ce of mitigating factors, and by instead
sentencing him to the presumptive guidelines sentence.
Affirmed.