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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-0187

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Nathan James Severtson,
Appellant.

Filed September 9, 2024
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Benton County District Court
File No. 05-CR-23-355

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

Kathleen L. Reuter, Benton County Attorney, Foley, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Wheelock,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SLIETER, Judge
On direct appeal from the final judgment of conviction of second-degree assault,
appellant Nathan James Severtson challenges his sentence and argues that the district court
2
abused its discretion by denying his motion for a dispositional departure. Because the
district court acted within its discretion by imposing a guidelines sentence, we affirm.
FACTS
In February 2023, respondent State of Minnesota charged Severtson with, among
other crimes, second-degree assault in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1 (2022).
Severtson entered a Norgaard plea,1 agreeing that the state’s evidence demonstrates that
he drove his car into a parked vehicle and person in a Target parking lot.
Severtson sought a downward-dispositional departure, claiming substantial and
compelling reasons support departing. A departure memorandum was filed with the district
court, which opined that a dispositional departure would allow Severtson “to get the
treatment he so desperately needs for a hope filled future.” The presentence investigation
(PSI) recommended a guidelines sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment though it also
provided the district court with a recommendation involving probationary terms, in th e
event that the district court decided to grant Severtson’s departure motion.
Severtson appeared for sentencing in November 2023. The district court denied
Severtson’s departure motion and imposed the presumptive guidelines sentence of 21
months’ imprisonment. Severtson appeals.
DECISION
A district court must impose a sentence within the Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines’ presumptive range unless it finds substantial and compelling circumstances to

1 A Norgaard plea allows a defendant to plead guilty despite failing to remember details
of the offense. See State ex rel. Norgaard v. Tahash, 110 N.W.2d 867, 872 (Minn. 1961).
3
depart. State v. Barthman, 938 N.W.2d 257, 270 (Minn. 2020). “Substantial and
compelling circumstances” are circumstances that make the facts of a particular case
distinct from a typical case. Taylor v. State, 670 N.W.2d 584, 587 (Minn. 2003) (quotation
omitted). If a district court finds such circumstances exist, it may, but is not required to,
depart from the presumptive sentence. See Wells v. State, 839 N.W.2d 775, 781 (Minn.
App. 2013), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 18, 2014). The district court is not required to give
an explanation when it considers reasons for departure but nevertheless imposes a
presumptive sentence. See State v. Musse, 981 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Minn. App. 2022), rev.
denied (Minn. Dec. 28, 2022).
We review a district court’s decision not to depart from the sentencing guidelines
for an abuse of discretion. State v. Oberg, 627 N.W.2d 721, 724 (Minn. App. 2001), rev.
denied (Minn. Aug. 22, 2001). When substantial and compelling circumstances exist, the
district court has broad discretion to depart, and this court generally will not interfere with
the exercise of that discretion. State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981). Only in a
“rare” case will this court reverse the district court’s refusal to depart from the presumptive
sentence. Id. This court will affirm the denial of a departure motion “as long as the record
shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented
before making a determination.” State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251, 255 (Minn. App. 2011)
(quotation omitted).
When a district court rules on a motion for dispositional departure, its focus is on
whether the defendant’s characteristics make the defendant “particularly” amenable to
probation. See State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982); Minn. Sent’g Guidelines
4
2.D.3.a(7) (2022). This requirement ensures 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.” State v. Soto, 855
N.W.2d 303, 309 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
Whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation depends on multiple
factors, including the defendant’s age, prior criminal record, remorse, cooperation, attitude
in court, and support of friends and family. Trog, 323 N.W.2d at 31. But even in the
presence of factors that suggest a defendant would be particularly amenable to probation,
the district court need not grant a downward-dispositional departure. State v. Olson, 765
N.W.2d 662, 664-65 (Minn. App. 2009).
Severtson argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his
dispositional-departure motion, claiming that “his young age, lack of prior record, remorse,
acceptance of responsibility, community support, and motivation to change” support
departure.
At the start of Severtson’s sentencing hearing, the district court noted that it
“reviewed the file materials, including the [PSI] as well as the dispositional advisor’s
recommendations and the attachments.” Defense counsel argued for departure at
sentencing, noting that chemical -dependency treatment had been arranged for Severtson.
The state argued against departure, claiming that the Trog factors do not support departure
in this case. The state noted that, despite being only 18 years old at the time of the offense,
Severtson had three previous assault adjudications and it questioned whether Severtson
was remorseful and had sufficient support from his community to prevent him from
5
reoffending. The state also questioned Severtson’s amenability to treatment, noting that
Severtson told the PSI author that he does not have a drinking problem.
Although there is some evidence of Severtson’s amenability to probation, the
district court was not required to depart. Olson, 765 N.W.2d at 664-65. The record
demonstrates that the district court considered the relevant evidence supporting departure
before denying Severtson’s motion for a dispositional departure. Pegel , 795 N.W.2d at
255; see also Musse, 981 N.W.2d at 220 (noting that the district court is not required to
explain its decision to deny a departure request and impose a guidelines sentence). The
district court, therefore, acted within its discretion by denying Severtson’s departure
motion and imposing a guidelines sentence.
Affirmed.