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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-1209

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

William Eugene Hale,
Appellant.

Filed June 20, 2022
Affirmed
Bryan, Judge

Crow Wing County District Court
File No. 18-CR-18-4285

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

Donald F. Ryan, Crow Wing Attorney, Brainerd, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Max Brady Kittel, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Wheelock, Pres iding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Bryan,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BRYAN, Judge
In this sentencing appeal, appellant challenges the denial of his downward
dispositional departure motion. Because the deni al is not against logic or the facts in the
record, we affirm the sentence imposed.
2
FACTS
In October 2018, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant William Eugene
Hale with four counts of first-degree crimin al sexual conduct and f our counts of second-
degree criminal sexual conduct. The state amended the complaint in September 2019 to
add two new counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. In November 2019, Hale
agreed to enter a guilty plea to second-degree criminal sexual conduct. In exchange for his
plea, the state agreed to recommend stayi ng adjudication, dismissing the nine other
charges, and including sex offender treatment as a term of probation. In March 2020, the
district court adopted the parties’ plea ag reement and stayed adjudication of the second-
degree criminal sexual conduct charge. The di strict court ordered Hale to complete a 15-
year term of supervised probation, in cluding the following conditions: follow the
recommendations of the psychosexual evaluation, complete sex offender treatment, submit
to a polygraph examination, abstain from al cohol and drugs, co mplete a chemical
dependency assessment, follow the recommenda tions of that assessment, and submit to
random drug and alcohol testing.
Hale participated in sex-offender treatment from May until August 2020, when he
was terminated from treatment for nonpayment. In September 2020, probation filed a
violation report, alleging that Hale violated the condition that prohibits the use of alcohol
or controlled substances. The report no ted that Hale admitted frequent use of
methamphetamine over the preced ing two weeks, and that Hale recently acquired a new
job but quit less than a month later “for no particular reason.” In October 2020, probation
filed an addendum to the violation report, alleging that Hale had used alcohol and
3
methamphetamine again. In December 2020, Hale admitted to both probation violations
and the district court revoked the stay of adjudication. Hale was convicted of second-
degree criminal sexual conduct and released pending sentencing. The state explained that
“if Mr. Hale has demonstrated that he’s par ticularly amenable to probation by not having
further violations, successfully completing trea tment, and engaging in the conditions of
probation,” then it would agree to a dispositional departure.
In February 2021, before the sentencing hearing to ok place, Hale completed
inpatient treatment. While Hale was attending outpatient programming, however, he tested
positive for methamphetamine and probation file d a second addendum to the violation
report. According to the second addendum, when the supervising agent requested Hale
submit a urine sample on Februa ry 24, 2021, Hale initially stalled for 20 minutes before
ultimately testing positive for methamphetamine. After testing positive, Hale admitted to
methamphetamine use on two prev ious occasions. When Hale met with his supervising
agent again in March, Hale admitted to add itional methamphetamine use. In addition,
according to the second addendum, Hale had “b een on probation for over a year and has
yet to really start sex offender treatment . . . . Quitting his job a nd leaving the halfway
house were impulsive behaviors. This, coupled with continued substance use and lack of
sex offender programming, raises significant c oncerns for public safety.” Hale also
admitted to this probation violation and the matter was set for sentencing.
Hale moved for a downward dispositional departure, asserting that he was amenable
to probation and in the altern ative, requested the minimum presumptive sentence of 90
months. Hale filed a letter to the district court expressing remorse and shame for his
4
actions. Hale also submitted a letter from hi s outpatient chemical dependency program
stating, among other things, th at Hale’s attendance was fair to good, he had “become an
asset to the group,” and “progressing well on his treatment plan.” At his sentencing in June
2021, the state requested the top-of-the-box presumptive se ntence of 108 months. The
state argued that Hale had mu ltiple opportunities to address his substance abuse but has
been unsuccessful.
The district court received testimony from Hale’s probation officer and admitted
Hale’s treatment records and his most recent chemical dependency recommendations. The
current probation officer testified that she did not think that Hale was particularly amenable
to probation because he was unwilling to admit the facts of the offense, even though Hale
had done so with his former probation officer. Hale’s probation officer also testified that
Hale admitted to substance use only after he tested positive for me thamphetamine. The
probation officer explained that she believed Hale was willing to go to inpatient treatment,
but that she generally expected more to show particular amenability. The probation officer
also explained that the March 2021 recommendation to continue outpatient treatment was
no longer appropriate give n her conversations with Hale a nd his lack of accountability.
Among other documents, the district court re ceived a letter from a behavioral health
counselor from the sex offender treatment program that Hale participated in until his
discharge in August 2020. The counselor stated that at th e time of his termination from
the program, Hale had completed no assignme nts, continued to de ny behavior in the
criminal complaint, and had not made any payments for the polygraph examination.
5
On June 22, 2021, the district court de nied Hale’s dispositional departure motion
and sentenced Hale to an executed prison term of 98 months. The district court found that
Hale had “not completed trea tment as required by probation” and had “not maintained
sobriety even after finishing a treatment program.” The district court also found that Hale
addressed his substance use only when he was confronted with a positive test, “made
statements denying conduct that he previously admitted to,” and continued to present a risk
to public safety. Hale appeals.
DECISION
Hale argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion for a dispositional
departure. Specifically, Hale argues that the di strict court failed to give sufficient weight
to the progress that he made in treatment. Because it is not against logic to conclude that
Hale’s conduct while on probation and pending the sentencing hearing indicates he is not
particularly amenable to probation, the district court did not abuse its discretion.
The Minnesota Sentencing Guid elines establish sentences that are presumptively
appropriate. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.1 (2 018); Minn. Stat. § 244.09, subd. 5 (2018);
State v. Soto , 855 N.W.2d 303, 308 (Minn. 2014). The district court must pronounce a
presumptive sentence “unless there exist id entifiable, substantial, and compelling
circumstances to support a departure.” Mi nn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.1 (Supp. 2018); State
v. Solberg, 882 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Minn. 2016). A dist rict court is not required to grant a
departure even if there are grounds that would justify a departure. See State v. Bertsch ,
707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006); Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3 (2018) (providing that
the factors “may” be used to depart). District courts may consider both offense-related and
6
offender-related factors when deciding whet her to grant a request for dispositional
departure. State v. Walker , 913 N.W.2d 463, 468 (M inn. App. 2018) (citing State v.
Chaklos, 528 N.W.2d 225, 228 (Minn. 1995)). We review a district court’s denial of
dispositional departure requests for an abuse of discretion. Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 307-08.
A district court abuses its discretion when it s decision is against logic or the facts in the
record. State v. Guzman, 892 N.W.2d 801, 810 (Minn. 2017).
In this case, Hale argued for a downwa rd dispositional departure based on his
particular amenability to indivi dualized treatment in a probatio nary setting. Minn. Sent.
Guidelines 2.D.3.a.(7). For a departure to be warranted on this basis, the defendant must
be particularly amenable to probation—meaning that “the defendant’s amenability to
probation distinguishes the defendant from most others and truly presents the substantial
and compelling circumstances that are necessary to justify a departure.” Soto, 855 N.W.2d
at 309 (quotation omitted); see also State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982) (listing
factors relevant to particular amenability, including age, criminal history, remorse,
cooperation, attitude while in court, and the support of friends or family).
While the record includes so me statements that could support Hale’s departure
motion, it also includes uncontested evidence that strongly weighs against the Trog factors.
For example, Hale admitted to multiple probation violations, including those that resulted
in the revocation of the initial stay of adjudica tion. Hale’s failure to abstain from the use
of drugs continued even after completing the inpatient portion of his treatment program in
February 2021, when Hale used methampheta mine on several separate occasions. In
addition, although Hale expressed motivation to participate in a sex offender treatment
7
program, after more than one year, Hale ha d yet to complete a single assignment. In
addition, the state submitted evidence that Hale was not completely forthright and admitted
to substance use only after he failed drug tests. Given Ha le’s history of noncompliance
with the terms of probation, Hale’s lack of progress in the sex offender treatment program,
and Hale’s mixed efforts to demonstrate accountability, we conclude that it was not against
logic or the facts to deny the departure request.
Affirmed.