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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-1564

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Bounhom NA,
Appellant.

Filed August 4, 2025
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CR-22-443

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

John Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Anna R. Light, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Connolly,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
CONNOLLY, Judge
On direct appeal from his conviction of third-degree criminal sexual conduct,
appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a
downward dispositional departure. We affirm.
2
FACTS
Appellant Bounhom NA 1 married C.M. in 2017. On January 24, 2022, appellant
and C.M. were arguing at approximately 4:00 a.m. Appellant told C.M. to perform fellatio
on him. When she refused, appellant pushed C.M.’s head onto his genitals. C.M. attempted
to get away, but app ellant pushed her onto the bed, held her arm down, forced her legs
apart, and hit her with a flashlight. He then “shoved” the flashlight into her vagina. C.M.
“didn’t want it” and was moving and kicking appellant. Appellant hit C.M. on her arms,
pelvis, and thighs using his fists, the flashlight, and a plastic hanger.
Later that day, C.M. underwent a sexual assault examination with a sexual assault
nurse examiner. The nurse examiner noted numerous injuries on C.M., including redness
on her cheek, shoulder, hip, buttocks, thighs, and bruising on her arms and vaginal opening.
The nurse examiner “believed the injury was concurrent/conclusive of a forceful
penetration.”
Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant with third-degree criminal sexual
conduct.2 The parties submitted the case to the district court for a stipulated evidence trial
under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 3. The stipulated evidence included, among other
evidence, the sexual assault examination report, police reports, and a police interview with
C.M. The district court found appellant guilty. Appellant moved for a downward

1 The record indicates appellant’s name is only “Bounhom” and some of the district court
orders use “FNU Bounhom” in the case caption. However, w e do not change the title of
the action in the appeal. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 143.01.

2 Appellant was also charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct, but this was later
dismissed.
3
dispositional departure, arguing that he was particularly amenable to treatment in a
probation setting. The district court denied appellant’s motion, entered a conviction of
third-degree criminal sexual conduct, and imposed a presumptive sentence of 48 months
in prison.
This appeal follows.
DECISION
Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for a downward
dispositional departure. A district court has great discretion in sentencing, and we review
the district court’s sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. State v. Soto, 855
N.W.2d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014). Only in a “rare case” will a reviewing court reverse a
district court’s imposition of the presumptive sentence. State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660,
668 (Minn. 2006); see also State v. Delk, 781 N.W.2d 426, 428 (Minn. App. 2010) (stating
that this court will rarely disturb a district court’s decision to impose a sentence within the
presumptive guidelines range), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines establish presumptive sentences for criminal
offenses and seek to “maintain uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability
in sentencing.” Minn. Stat. § 244.09, subd. 5 (2020). “Consequently, departures from the
guidelines are discouraged and are intended to apply 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 (Supp. 2021). Even
if there are factors that weigh in favor of a departure, the district court does not abuse its
4
discretion by denying a departure. See State v. Kindem , 313 N.W.2d 6, 8 (Minn. 1981)
(stating that “while there may have been arguments for departing downward,” the decision
to depart is discretionary).
A defendant’s particular amenability to probation can justify a downward
dispositional departure from a presumptive sentence. Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 308. In
determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation so as to justify a
downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider, among other things, the
defendant’s age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in court, and the support
of friends or family. State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982). Mere amenability is
not sufficient; “requiring a defendant to be particularly amenable to probation
. . . distinguishes the defendant from most others and . . . presents the substantial and
compelling circumstances that are necessary to justify a departure.” Soto, 855 N.W.2d at
308-09 (quotation omitted).
Appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion by concluding that he
is not particularly amenable to probation. He argues the district court improperly weighed
two of the Trog factors, specifically age and lack of remorse, against a finding of particular
amenability to probation. He does not take issue with the district court’s conclusions that
other Trog factors weigh in favor of a departure, including his prior record, his cooperation,
his attitude while in court, and the support of his friends and family. We are not persuaded.
While a district court is required to give reasons for granting a departure, it need not
explain its decision to impose a presumptive sentence so long as the record is clear that the
district court has considered reasons for departure. State v. Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d 77, 80
5
(Minn. App. 1985) . Accordingly, we will not disturb the district court ’s exercise of
discretion in imposing “a presumptive guidelines sentence when the record shows that the
sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before
making a determination.” State v. Johnson , 831 N.W.2d 917, 925 (Minn. App. 2013)
(quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 17, 2013).
The record reflects that the district court appropriately considered each of the Trog
factors “as a whole” and noted that “[n]o one factor decides anything.” In doing so, it
reviewed the presentence investigation, the psychosexual evaluation, the victim -impact
statement, a letter signed by 7 of the victim’s children, 15 letters from appellant’s family
and friends, appellant’s statement to the court, and the arguments of the attorneys.
Appellant argues that the district court improperly weighed his age against him. The
district court found that appellant’s age of 37 years old weighed against finding particular
amenability. T he district court compared this case to Soto, in which the Minnesota
Supreme Court reiterated that age is a factor for the district court to consider when
determining a defendant’s particular amenability to probation. 855 N.W.2d at 310. The
supreme court concluded that Soto’s age of 37 did not mak e him particularly amenable to
probation. Id. Because a defendant’s age must support a conclusion that he is particularly
amenable to probation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its finding .
Appellant asserts that his age should not be weighed against him because he was raised in
a different country and received a middle -school education. The record reflects that the
district court considered the presentence investigation and argument of his counsel, which
both noted appellant’s cultural and educational background. Moreover, “educational
6
attainment” is a factor that “should not” be used as a reason for a departure. Minn. Sent’g.
Guidelines 2.D.2.d.(1).
Appellant next asserts that the district court’s conclusion that he showed no remorse
is contrary to the record and was improperly weighed against him. We are not persuaded.
As noted by the district court , during the presentence investigation and the psychosexual
evaluation appellant denied committing the offense. As evidence of his remorse, appellant
points to a letter submitted by a church member that discusses his remorse. The district
court considered the letters submitted by appellant’s friends. Because it did so, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that appellant showed no remorse.
Lastly, appellant contends that the record demonstrates he is amenable to treatment
in a probationary setting, because the psychosexual report and the mitigation report
submitted by the defense stated that appellant could complete outpatient sex -offender
treatment. The mitigation report submitted by the defense also identified a specific
outpatient sex-offender treatment that would be available to appellant. While reports such
as these may contain useful information in determining whether to depart, recom mending
probation or outpatient treatment does not necessarily support a conclusion that appellant
is particularly amenable to probation. See Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 309 -10. Appellant also
notes statistics indicating that persons with third -degree criminal sexual conduct
convictions often receive a dispositional departure. But these statistics are unpersuasive
because a district court’s decision to grant a dispositional departure is based on the nature
of the individual. Solberg, 882 N.W.2d at 623.
7
On this record, it is clear that the district court weighed the reasons for and against
a downward dispositional departure. See Kindem, 313 N.W.2d at 8. The district court did
not abuse its discretion in imposing the presumptive sentence, and this is not a rare case in
which we disturb the sentence.
Affirmed.