State of Minnesota v. Bryan William Demarais

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A25-1779

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Bryan William Demarais,
Appellant.

Filed August 17, 2026
Affirmed
Worke, Judge

Meeker County District Court
File No. 47-CR-24-2

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Lydia Villalva Lijó, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and

Brandi Schiefelbein, Meeker County Attorney, Litchfield, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Ede, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Reilly, Judge.
∗

∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
WORKE, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s imposition of the top-of-the-box sentence1
for appellant’s second-degree murder conviction. We affirm.
FACTS
In January 2024, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Bryan William
Demarais with second-degree murder and two counts of child endangerment. See Minn.
Stat. §§ 609.19, subd. 1, .378, subd. 1(b)(1) (2022). The presumptive sentence for the
murder offense was 306 months in prison, with a range between 261 and 367 months. The
state moved for an aggravated sentence because Demarais murdered his wife in the
presence of their children. The district court granted the state’s motion.
In July 2025, Demarais pleaded guilty to the three offenses. The agreement
provided that Demarais would request a 306- month prison sentence, and the state would
withdraw its aggravated-departure motion and request a 367- month prison sentence. The
victim’s family also wanted the district court to impose the 367-month prison sentence.
Demarais entered a Norgaard plea, claiming to “not remember the circumstances of
the offenses,” but acknowledging that the state’s evidence was sufficient for a jury to find
him guilty. See State ex rel. Norgaard v. Tahash, 110 N.W.2d 867 (Minn. 1961). In
establishing the factual basis to support the plea, Demarais agreed that he was married to

1 A presumptive sentence is often referred to as the “middle of the box.” State v. Morgan,
968 N.W.2d 25, 28 n.2 (Minn. 2021). “The longest and shortest terms in the presumptive
range are commonly called the ‘top of the box’ and the ‘bottom of the box.’” Id.

3
K.D., and they had two young children. On the morning of December 28, 2023, Demarais
and K.D. argued about marital issues. Demarais went to work, but he left early and returned
home because he was upset. Demarais took a firearm that was in the house and was going
to move it to the garage. Demarais and K.D. began to argue. Demarais claimed that this
was the last thing that he remembered.
Demarais acknowledged that the state was prepared to present the following facts
to the jury. The children were in a bedroom when they heard arguing and then multiple
gunshots. The children saw K.D. fall to the ground. K.D. yelled out to call 911. The older
child asked Demarais if the child should call 911. Demarais responded that he would call
911 and closed the bedroom door. The children heard additional gunshots and were scared
because they thought that an intruder had entered the home. When officers arrived, they
helped the children climb out of the bedroom window. In his 911 call, Demarais admitted
that he shot K.D. “repeatedly” using a .22-caliber firearm. K.D. suffered nine gunshot
wounds.
At the sentencing hearing, the state argued that a 367-month prison sentence was
proper because K.D. was unarmed and in her own home, and her children witnessed her
fall to the ground and beg for help. The prosecutor asserted that Demarais did not express
any remorse, and “throughout the investigation and jail messages, [Demarais] attempted to
paint [K.D.] as a mean monster that deserved to be dead and that [the children] are better
off without having [her] in their lives.” The prosecutor stated that Demarais described
K.D. as “the enemy, a black shadow, and the danger.” The prosecutor stated that, because
the children were adopted by Demarais’s parents, they will only ever hear negative

4
comments about their mother. Several victim-impact statements from K.D.’s family
members were read at sentencing.
Demarais argued that he should receive a 306-month prison sentence because “the
presumed sentence is the appropriate sentence.” He argued that he immediately called 911
and cooperated with law enforcement, he is a veteran, and he has no criminal history.
The district court sentenced Demarais to 367 months in prison for his murder
conviction, a concurrent 28 months in prison for the first child-endangerment conviction,
and a concurrent 33 months in prison for the second child-endangerment conviction. The
district court noted that Demarais had taken responsibility by pleading guilty. But the
district court stated that 367 months was appropriate because the children will be without
their mother for the rest of their lives, Demarais failed to show remorse, and the children
were frightened during the murder. This appeal followed.
DECISION
Demarais argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the top-of-
the-box sentence. “We afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of
sentences” and review its sentencing decision only for an abuse of that discretion. State v.
Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted). A district court abuses
its discretion when its decision is contrary to law or against logic and the facts on record.
Riley v. State, 792 N.W.2d 831, 833 (Minn. 2011).
A district court must pronounce a sentence within the applicable range provided in
the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, unless “identifiable, substantial, and compelling
circumstances” support a departure. Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2022). A sentence

5
within the guidelines range is presumed appropriate. Id. And a sentence within the
guidelines range is not a departure, but “is a presumptive sentence . . . generally not subject
to appellate review of the district court’s exercise of its discretion.” State v. Delk,
781 N.W.2d 426, 427 (Minn. App. 2010), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2010). “Presumptive
sentences are seldom overturned.” Id. at 428 (quotation omitted). This court will affirm
the imposition of a presumptive sentence when a district court carefully evaluated all the
testimony and information presented before making a decision. State v. Johnson,
831 N.W.2d 917, 925 (Minn. App. 2013), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 17, 2013).
Here, Demarais acknowledges that his sentence is within the presumptive guidelines
range, but he argues that it unfairly exaggerates the criminality of his conduct and that the
district court impermissibly considered “social factors.” Specifically, Demarais argues that
the district court should not have considered that the children would not have a mother and
that he was not remorseful.
The district court properly considered all of the information presented at sentencing
and did not abuse its discretion by imposing the top-of-the-box sentence. First, as part of
the plea agreement, the state indicated its intent to seek the top-of -the-box sentence, so
Demarais was always aware that the state would seek this sentence. Second, the district
court had granted the state’s motion to seek an aggravated sentence. So, the state believed
that Demarais should receive a longer sentence than the 367-month sentence and would
have been able to argue for a longer sentence if Demarais had been found guilty after a
trial.

6
Additionally, while “social factors” are not to be considered in justifying a
sentencing departure, this case does not involve a departure. See State v. Solomon,
359 N.W.2d 19, 22 (Minn. 1984) (stating that social and economic factors may not be
considered except indirectly in determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable
to probation). Finally, while Demarais argues that the district court should not have
considered his lack of remorse, a district court does not have to explain its reasons for
imposing a presumptive sentence when it considers all relevant information before
imposing sentence. See State v. Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d 77, 80 (Minn. App. 1985).
The district court was aware of the parties’ agreement regarding sentencing and
heard the parties’ sentencing arguments. The district court also considered the victim-
impact statements, the fact that the children witnessed their mother’s murder and would
live their lives without her, and the fact that Demarais did not express remorse and instead
stated that the children would be better off without their mother. The record supports the
district court’s sentencing decision; therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion
by imposing the top-of-the-box sentence.
Affirmed.