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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A25-1092

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Nathan Ray Sutton,
Appellant.

Filed March 30, 2026
Affirmed
Schmidt, Judge

Anoka County District Court
File No. 02-CR-24-5086

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

Brad Johnson, Anoka County Attorney, Kelsey R. Kelley, Assistant County Attorney,
Anoka, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Roy G. Spurbeck, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Larson, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Schmidt,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SCHMIDT, Judge
Appellant Nathan Ray Sutton challenges the district court’s order denying his
request for a downward dispositional departure. We affirm.
2
FACTS
While living with his wife and her children, Sutton sexually assaulted his wife’s
13-year-old daughter. Respondent State of Minnesota charged Sutton with ten counts of
first-degree criminal sexual conduct. The complaint alleged numerous instances of sexual
abuse spanning over a year. The district court issued a domestic-abuse no-contact order
and a harassment restraining order, both of which prohibited Sutton from contacting the
child. Despite the orders, Sutton continued to contact the child.
Sutton pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, and, in
return, the state dismissed the remaining nine charges. Sutton requested a downward
dispositional departure on his sentence, arguing that he was particularly amenable to
probation. The state opposed the departure request, citing the district court’s issuance of
the no-contact orders and Sutton’s continued contact with the child following his arrest.
At sentencing, the district court gave its reasoning for denying the departure motion:
Well, obviously, Mr. Sutton, the Court was provided
with a number of documents, a lot of information regarding
both the offense and regarding you as a person and the steps
you have taken. As it’s already been alluded to, in order for
the Court to order a departure in any case from the guidelines,
the Court has to find that there are substantial and compelling
reasons. So things that set this case apart from others similarly
situated. And for a dispositional departure, the Court looks
more at factors surrounding yourself. Not necessarily the
offense, but we say the offender. So looking at those factors to
see whether or not you’re particularly suited to individualized
treatment in a probationary or community setting.

And there’s a number of factors that by law kind of
guides the Court in looking at that. One of those is your age.
Obviously, at the time of the offense you were 20 years old.
You’re 22 now. You’re not, you know, an old individual who’s
3
had a ton of life experiences. So we kind of look at that to say
you know, are you old enough to know better. Obviously, you
were an adult and knew right from wrong and knew your
actions were wrong, but not maybe someone with the same
experience that we would necessarily determine would have
that additional background to give the Court pause. So that
doesn’t necessarily work against a departure. It’s somewhat
neutral in this case.

Your prior record. Obviously, you don’t have a prior
record of this kind. However, the Court also looks at that, kind
of, is already taken into account. Even with no criminal record,
the legislature has determined that this is a type of crime that
warrants, even on a first offense, a prison sentence. So I—I
look not only at prior record because that’s already kind of
taken into account, criminal history, but also some of the
actions, you know, if you have been on probation or your
ability to follow court orders.

And obviously here, there are some concerns with that
considering that while the investigation was ongoing, there was
at least a harassment restraining order in place. So there was a
Court order in place that you would have had an opportunity to
show that you’re able to abide by court orders and conditions
that are ordered by the Court, and you violated that. You admit
in there that you continued your relationship with the victim
even after court orders were in place, even after having the
knowledge that you were being investigated, solely for the
reason that you thought, essentially, there wasn’t any proof and
that you could continue and get away with that type of conduct.
So, obviously, that’s something that works against the Court
moving forward with a departure.

Remorse is a little tricky. Obviously, I think, at this
point, you’ve shown an understanding of the type of impact
that you’ve had on the victim. However, also there are those
concerns where you knew what you were doing was wrong at
that time; you were confronted with it; you had an opportunity
to take accountability at that time and stop even additional
trauma from impacting the victim in this case, her family, your
family, your life; and you chose to continue with that conduct
and not have the wherewithal to—to stop yourself and to have
that remorse at the time.
4
Cooperation. Obviously, more recently you’ve been
cooperative with the process with being very up front with
what occurred. Obviously, that wasn’t the case in the
beginning. That’s changed over time with the initial denial,
thinking, you know, it’s your word against hers, and no one is
really believing her. So I can continue doing what I’m doing.
So it’s hard to say—and same with remorse. There’s that
divide with you after the fact knowing you’ve been caught
versus prior to and even having the idea that people were
starting to catch on or least have those allegations out there,
and you continued.

Your attitude in court has been fine. There’s no
concerns with the Court about that. You’ve been respectful in
court. So that’s not necessarily a reason that works against
you. And then it does appear from the letters that you have the
support of family members who want to see you succeed
moving forward. However the Court’s concern, obviously, in
those situations is you had that family, you had that support
when this was ongoing. And you didn’t use that. You didn’t
reach out to family to prevent, like I said, additional trauma to
the victim, additional issues for yourself and your family
moving forward. So it’s concerning. While I think and I hope
in the future you will use that support moving forward, it—it
doesn’t necessarily work in favor of a departure in the matter.

So when I look at all of the types of factors overall that
the Court looks at and analyzing those from a perspective of
whether or not probation would be appropriate in your case,
the Court, at this point, can’t find that there are substantial and
compelling reasons for a dispositional departure. And I hope
to you that doesn’t mean that you stop the work that you’ve
done because I don’t think that that—and I don’t want you to
think that’s ignored either, that you have taken some steps to
try to better yourself while you are in custody and to try to take
those steps to ensure that this doesn’t happen to you or anyone
else in the future so you can be the type of person when you
get out that you are hoping for. I— I hope that you keep those
goals moving forward. But at this time, it does not appear
appropriate to the Court to grant a dispositional departure.

The district court then sentenced Sutton to 144 months in prison. Sutton appealed.
5
DECISION
Sutton argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for
a downward dispositional departure. The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines provide
presumptive sentences for adult felony offenses. See Minn. Stat. § 244.09, subd. 5 (2022).
We generally will not reverse a district court’s imposition of a presumptive-guideline
sentence. State v. Musse, 981 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Minn. App. 2022), rev. denied (Minn.
Dec. 28, 2022). When the record demonstrates that the court considered the reasons for a
departure, it need not explain its decision to impose a presumptive sentence. Id.
The record shows that the district court “weigh[ed ] reasons for and against
departure” and “made a deliberate decision” to impose a presumptive 144-month sentence.
State v. Mendoza, 638 N.W.2d 480, 484 (Minn. App. 2002), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 16,
2002). The court heard arguments from defense counsel, the state, and Sutton. It also
considered numerous filings, such as the presentence-investigation report, a psychosexual-
evaluation report, Sutton’s departure memorandum, and letters of support.
Despite having no obligation to explicitly provide an explanation for imposing a
presumptive sentence , the district court thoroughly explained its reasons for denying
Sutton’s motion for a departure. The court spoke directly to Sutton and addressed the facts
that weighed for and against a departure, including Sutton’s age, his lack of criminal
history, his failure to follow the no-contact orders, his remorse, his respectful demeanor in
court, and his familial support. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
Sutton’s motion for a downward dispositional departure.
Affirmed.