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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A22-0977

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Nicholas Isaiah Antoine James,
Appellant.

Filed June 20, 2023
Affirmed
Reyes, Judge

Chisago County District Court
File No. 13-CR-19-423

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

Janet Reiter, Chisago County Attorney, John L. Lovasz, Assistant County Attorney, Center
City, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Larson, Presiding Judge; Reilly , Judge; and Reyes ,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REYES, Judge
Appellant asserts that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion
for a downward dispositional departure, arguing that he is particularly amenable to
2
probation and treatment and that he has reduced culpability based on age, cognitive
condition, and a more passive role than his co-defendants. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Nicholas Isaiah Antoine James
with first-degree attempted murder, Minn. Stat. §§ 609.185(a)(3), .17, subd. 1 (2018);
aiding and abetting first-degree attempted murder while committing a felony, Minn. Stat.
§§ 609.185(a)(3), .05, subd. 1, .17, subd. 1; aiding and abetting first-degree assault, Minn.
Stat. §§ 609.221, subd. 1, .05, subd. 1, .11, subd. 5(a) (2018); and aiding and abetting first-
degree aggravated robbery, Minn. Stat. §§ 609.245, subd. 1, .05, subd. 1 (2018). The
complaint alleged that, on or about May 15 to 16, 2019, appellant and two other teenagers
robbed a victim of approximately three ounces of marijuana and $2,000 from the victim’s
residence. When the victim attempted to escape, one of appellant’s co-defendants shot him
in the upper torso. The victim remained at Hennepin County Medical Center at the time
of the complaint on September 8, 2020. In November 2021, appellant entered an Alford
1
plea to the amended charge of aiding and abetting attempted second-degree intentional
murder, Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2018).
Appellant was 18 years old at the time of the offense. Appellant started living under
his grandmother’s foster care when he was two or three years old and suffered abuse from
his grandmother. After detailing appellant’s childhood trauma and mental-health history,

1 Under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), a criminal defendant may tender a
guilty plea while maintaining innocence when they believe that, if the state presents the
evidence at trial, there is a substantial likelihood that they will be found guilty of the offense
to which they are pleading guilty.
3
the presentence-investigation (P SI) report recommended a sentence of 130 1/2 months,
which is the lower end of the presumptive range of 130 1/2 months to 183 1/2 months for
appellant’s offense under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. Minn. Sent’g Guidelines
4.A, 2.G.2 (2018). (The guideline’s sentencing range for second-degree intentional murder
is 261 months to 367 months, and the presumptive sentence for an attempt is one-half the
amount for the underlying offense.)
In April 2022, appellant moved for a downward dispositional departure, asserting
his particular amenability to probation and treatment. In support of the motion, appellant
submitted (1) a dispositional advisor’s memorandum recommending a downward
departure; (2) information about appellant’s chemical dependency and mental- health
treatment; (3) support letters from family members and friends; (4) a letter from appellant
to the district court; and (5) a treatment completion certificate. After reviewing all the
exhibits and following a sentencing hearing, the district court denied the departure motion.
It sentenced appellant to 130 1/2 months in prison and ordered him to pay $10,189.16 in
restitution. This appeal follows.
DECISION
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion
for a downward dispositional departure. We are not persuaded.
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines establish presumptive sentences for felony
offenses. Minn. Stat. § 244.09, subd. 5 (20 18). The guidelines seek to “maintain
uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing.” Id.
“Consequently, departures from the guidelines are discouraged and are intended to apply
4
to a small number of cases.” State v. Solberg, 882 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Minn. 2016). A
district court may depart from the presumptive sentence only when there are “identifiable,
substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” Minn. Sent’g
Guidelines 2.D.1 (2018); see also State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981).
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of
a particular case different from a typical case.” State v. Peake , 366 N.W.2d 299, 301
(Minn. 1985). 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).
A district court’s refusal to depart from the sentencing guidelines will not be
reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131, 140 (Minn.
2005). When a district court imposes a presumptive sentence, appellate court s may not
interfere with the district court’s exercise of discretion if the record shows that the 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 (Minn. App. 1985). Only in a
“rare case ” will we reverse the district court’s refusal to depart from a presumptive
sentence. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d at 7. Finally, although the district court must give reasons
for departure, no explanation is required when the court considers reasons for departure
but decides to impose a presumptive sentence. Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d at 80.
Here, appellant argued for a downward dispositional departure based on his
particular amenability to probation. See State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 308-09 (Minn.
2014) (recognizing “particular amenability to probation” as a basis for downward
5
departure). Assessing particular amenability to probation involves consideration of factors
including the person’s age, criminal history, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in court,
and the support of friends and/or family. See State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn.
1982). Appellant further argued that his age, cognitive condition, and a relatively passive
role in the offense as compared to his co-defendants also supported a downward departure.
See State v. Wittman, 461 N.W.2d 247, 250 (Minn. App. 1990) (upholding district court’s
grant of downward dispositional departure based on defendant’s limited role in offense).
The record shows that the district court reviewed all the exhibits appellant
submitted, including the dispositional advisor’s report, appellant’s in-custody treatment
progress, support letters from appellant’s family and friends, letters from appellant’s
counsel and appellant himself. After hearing appellant’s oral argument,
2 the district court
took a recess to further consider all the evidence. Ultimately, the district court found that
appellant was not particularly amenable to probation because, among other reasons,
appellant (1) repeatedly failed to appear for court and co mmitted conditional -release
violations; (2) had additional pending charges from January 2020 for felony unlawful
possession and sale of a controlled substance; (3) had an extensive juvenile history; and

2 Pursuant to the plea agreement, the state did not argue against appellant’s motion.
6
(4) told people inconsistent stories at different times to get different results. 3 Because the
district court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented to it before
making its determination, we conclude that it did not abuse its discretion by denying the
motion to depart.
Affirmed.

3 The district court also found that appellant failed to follow the doctor’s instructions to
regulate his diabetes. Appellant argues that the district court violated his constitutional
right to control medical decisions by punishing him for it. Because appellant did not raise
this argument at the district court, he has forfeited the argument on appeal. See State v.
Wembley, 728 N.W.2d 243, 245 (Minn. 2007). The argument also fails on the merits
because the record shows that the district court only referenced it as an example of
appellant’s history of disobeying orders. The district court did not “punish” him for his
medical decisions.