State of Minnesota, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-1880

State of Minnesota,
Appellant,

vs.

Hardy Mondelus Galette,
Respondent.

Filed June 30, 2025
Affirmed
Harris, Judge

Sherburne County District Court
File No. 71-CR-23-1052

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

Dawn Nyhus, Sherburne County Attorney, George R. Kennedy, Assistant County
Attorney, Elk River, Minnesota (for appellant)

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

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Bratvold, Judge; and Harris,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
HARRIS, Judge
In this appeal by the state, appellant challenges the district court’s decision to grant
respondent’s motion for a downward dispositional departure. Because we conclude the
2
district court did not abuse its discretion when it stayed respondent’s sentence and placed
him on probation, we affirm.
FACTS
In August 2023, appellant State of Minnesota charged respondent Hardy Mondelus
Galette with felony domestic assault and second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon
under Minnesota Statutes sections 609.2242, subdivision 4, and 609.222, subdivision 1
(2022). Galette and the victim, J.T., were in the process of ending a significant romantic
relationship. While Galette was at J.T.’s home retrieving his personal items, they argued
about an iPad and got into a “confrontation,” which led to Galette intentionally hitting J.T.
in the head with a brick. J.T. called 911 and later received treatment at the emergency
department for bleeding and a concussion.
At the bail hearing, the district court issued a Domestic Abuse No Contact Order
(DANCO), prohibiting Galette from having any contact with J.T. or her home. In February
2024, Galette violated that DANCO by communicating with J.T. over the phone. Galette
had also violated other DANCOs in Sherburne and other counties.
In August 2024, Galette pleaded guilty to second-degree assault and the state agreed
to dismiss the felony domestic-assault charge. The parties did not have an agreement for
sentencing. Galette planned to seek a sentencing departure, while the state would argue
for an executed presumptive prison sentence. The district court released Galette from
custody on conditional bail and lifted the previously imposed DANCO from Sherburne
3
County. The district court also ordered a presentence investigation (PSI ), which
recommended a presumptive commitment to prison of 33 months.1
Galette filed a written motion for a downward dispositional departure based on his
remorse, employment, amenability to probation, community and family support, and his
participation in anger management. Galette also filed a dispositional advisor
memorandum, which described his background, family history, mental-health history,
employment, remorse, and his attitude moving forward.
At the sentencing hearing, Galette’s counsel argued that he was particularly
amenable to probation given his employment at a landscaping company and his enrollment
at a technical college. Galette’s counsel added that Galette is taking medication for his
bipolar disorder, attends weekly therapy, and is registered for anger management, which
was set to begin the following month. His counsel additionally explained that Galette had
given up smoking cigarettes and “every possible illegal substance.” Counsel also stated
that “one of the main changes in [Galette’s] life is the fact that he has another child . . .
[who] means the world to him.”

1 Under the Minnesota guidelines, the presumptive sentence for a second-degree assault
crime when the offender has a criminal-history score of two is 33 months, and that sentence
is presumptively stayed. Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 4.A (2022). However, Minnesota
Statute section 609.11, subdivision 4, provides in part, that offenses committed with a
dangerous weapon “shall be committed to the commissioner of corrections for not less than
one year plus one day, nor more than the maximum sentence provided by law,” which
occurred in Galette’s case. Minn. Stat § 609.11, subd. 4 (2022).
4
The district court next heard from the victim, J.T., who shares a son with Galette.
J.T. stated that she had “been saying for the whole time [that she does not] want him to go
to prison.” She recognized that “people make mistakes” but explained:
I understand the severity of this case, but this is the
father of my child, and life is already hard as it is, and to put
him in prison in a box while I have to take care of the kid alone
is not fair. It’s not fair to me, it’s not fair to his kid, and I
understand that he’s done wrong, and people can change and
do change, and I’ve seen that. So[,] I just would like for him
to not go to prison so that I don’t have to raise another kid by
myself.

J.T. also explained that it was the “heat of the moment, stuff happened” and that “on paper,
it looks bad, and [Galette] looks like a horrible person, but [she] [doesn’t] believe that he
is.”
The state argued that Galette’s employment history—at the time of the offense and
at sentencing—cannot be considered for departures. Additionally, the state argued that
Galette’s age, prior convictions, lack of remorse, and cooperation do not support a
departure. The state asked the district court to impose an executed sentence of 33 months
in prison.
The district court also heard from Galette, who explained his difficulties with
probation supervision. Galette also discussed how he was motivated to comply with
probation and remain in the community to care for his son, explaining that he “interact[s]
with [his] son regularly,” noting that his son is “60 days old,” and stating that “[he] would
never do anything to mess that up.”
5
After hearing testimony, the district court stated that it “tr[ied] to read as much
information as [it] [could] in anticipation of sentencing, especially when . . . looking at a
significant departure under these types of circumstances.” The district court explained that
it reviewed, among other things, the PSI in this case and another pending matter in Stearns
County.
The district court imposed a 39-month stayed sentence after finding that Galette was
particularly amenable to treatment. 2 In October 2024, the district court filed a departure
report with the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. In its departure report, the
district court noted the reasons for departure were (1) “[Galette] [was] particularly
amenable to probation, chemical dependency treatment, domestic abuse treatment and
mental health treatment” and (2) “[Galette] has family support, specifically [J.T.] (mother
of defendant’s child) who spoke at his sentencing [hearing].”
The state appeals.
DECISION
I. The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting Galette’s downward
dispositional departure under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.

The state argues that the district court abused its discretion by granting Galette’s
motion for a downward dispositional departure because the record does not support the

2 If the duration for a sentence that is a presumptive commitment is located in the shaded
areas of the sentencing grid, as it is here at 33 months, “the standard range of 15 percent
lower and 20 percent higher than the fixed duration displayed is permissible without
departure, provided that the minimum sentence is not less than one year and one day, and
the maximum sentence is not more than the statutory maximum.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines
2.C.1 (2022).
6
district court’s finding that Galette is particularly amenable to probation and treatment.
More specifically, the state asserts that Galette’s prior history and recent performance on
probation show the opposite and asks us to reverse the district court’s grant of a
dispositional departure. We are not persuaded.
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines “prescrib[e] a sentence or range of sentences
that is presumed to be appropriate.” State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 308 (Minn. 2014)
(quotation omitted). “Because the [sentencing] guidelines’ goal is to create uniformity in
sentencing, departures are justified only in exceptional cases.” State v. Solberg, 882
N.W.2d 618, 625 (Minn. 2016). The sentencing guidelines require the district court to
impose the presumptive sentence “unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and
compelling circumstances to support a departure.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2022).
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of
a particular case different from a typical case.” State v. Olson, 765 N.W.2d 662, 664 (Minn.
App. 2009). The district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence and we will
only reverse a district court’s sentencing decision if it abuses that discretion. Soto, 855
N.W.2d at 307-08. The district court’s grant of a downward dispositional departure is an
abuse of discretion if “the district court’s reasons are improper or insufficient and there is
insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure.” Id.at 308 (quotation omitted).
In determining whether substantial and compelling reasons support a downward
dispositional departure, the district court may consider offender-related and offense-related
factors. State v. Walker, 913 N.W.2d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018). One such factor is “a
defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting. ”
7
Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 308 (quoting State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1981). In
evaluating a defendant ’s particular amenability, district courts look to the Trog factors,
such as “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude
while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” Trog, 323 N.W.2d at 31. Notably,
“a single mitigating factor may support a downward sentencing departure.” Solberg, 882
N.W.2d at 625.
Here, the district court carefully evaluated all of the relevant information and found
one factor—the support of family—as a substantial and compelling basis to grant a
departure. The district court considered the Trog factors, the dispositional advisor’s report,
two PSIs, and the testimony presented at the sentencing hearing. At sentencing, J.T.
pleaded with the district court to grant a departure, arguing that although Galette made a
mistake, “people can change and do change.” She also stated, “[Galette] is the father of
my child, and life is already hard as it is, and to put him in prison in a box while I have to
take care of the kid alone is not fair.” Moreover, the district court found that Galette was
cooperative and showed remorse. And in its departure report, the district court noted that
it granted a departure because it found that Galette was particularly amenable to probation
and had family support, specifically J.T.
In sum, we are not convinced that the district court abused its discretion. The district
court has broad sentencing discretion; it is not our role to substitute our judgment for that
of the district court after it has weighed competing evidence. State v. Sejnoha, 512 N.W.2d
597, 601 (Minn. App. 1994), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 21, 1994). The record shows that the
district court evaluated the relevant information and found a single factor to determine that
8
Galette was particularly amenable to individualized treatment. See Solberg, 882 N.W.2d
at 625 (holding that a single mitigating factor may support departure). Because the district
court based the dispositional departure on a valid departure ground and the record supports
it, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a downward
dispositional departure.
Affirmed.