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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-0538

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Ryan Adam Burbul,
Appellant.

Filed January 29, 2024
Affirmed
Kirk, Judge*

Pine County District Court
File No. 58-CR-22-105

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

Reese Frederickson, Pine County Attorney, Michelle R. Skubitz, Chief Deputy County
Attorney, Pine City, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Angela Larsen (certified student
attorney), St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Schmidt, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Kirk,
Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
KIRK, Judge
Appellant Ryan Adam Burbul challenges his 126-month prison sentence, arguing
that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a downward
dispositional departure. We affirm.
FACTS
In February 2022, respondent State of Minnesota charged Burbul with first-degree
controlled substance sale and first-degree controlled substance possession. Burbul pleaded
guilty as charged and moved for a downward dispositional departure, seeking probation.
The district court denied the motion and sentenced Burbul to serve 126 months in prison
on the intent-to-sell count. The district court dismissed the possession count. In imposing
the presumptive, top- of-the-box sentence, the district court emphasized that Burbul was
already on probation at the time of his offense, that Burbul had four prior felony
convictions, and that Burbul had initially failed to comply with his presentence
investigation and drug treatment program.
Burbul appeals.
DECISION
A sentencing court may exercise its discretion to depart from the Minnesota
Sentencing 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) (citations and quotations
omitted). One circumstance that permits a district court to depart from the sentencing
3
guidelines is a defendant’s particular amenability to probation. See State v. Trog, 323
N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982). In Trog, the supreme court recognized factors that district
courts may consider when assessing whether a defendant is particularly amenable to
probation, including “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. But a district court
is not required to depart from the guidelines even if mitigating factors are present. See State
v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006). When the record reflects that the district
court carefully considered and evaluated the information and testimony presented, we will
not disturb a district court’s exercise of discretion. State v. Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d 77, 80–
81 (Minn. App. 1985).
The record does not support Burbul’s contention that the district court abused its
discretion in denying his motion for a downward dispositional departure. While Burbul did
introduce letters from friends and family in support of his motion and cooperated with
police and the district court throughout the process, he was also already on probation for a
drug offense at the time of the current offense and had four prior felony convictions. We
also note that although Burbul’s father’s health caused him difficulties in complying with
his presentence investigation, he additionally failed to complete his drug treatment program
at first, despite knowing that he would be asking for a downward dispositional departure.
Taken as a whole, the record supports the district court’s conclusion that no
substantial and compelling circumstances supported a dispositional departure. This is not

4
the “rare case” compelling this court to disturb the district court’s imposition of the
presumptive sentence. See State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981).
Affirmed.