This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-1456
State of Minnesota, Appellant,
vs.
Jonathon Michael Honeycutt, Respondent.
Filed January 25, 2016 Reversed and remanded Reilly, Judge
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CR-14-486
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Thomas R. Ragatz, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Mark J. Miller, Mark J. Miller, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and
Rodenberg, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
REILLY, Judge
The state challenges the district court’s dispositional departure from the
presumptive prison sentence for respondent’s conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Because the district court’s factual findings are not supported by the record, we
reverse and remand for resentencing.
FACTS
Following a jury trial, respondent Jonathon Michael Honeycutt was found guilty of
first-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(h)(iii) (2010),
stemming from ongoing sexual contact between respondent and his then-13-year-old niece.
The jury also found an aggravating factor of “multiple (more than one) forms or types of
sexual penetration committed against the victim.” Throughout the trial and sentencing,
respondent denied any wrongdoing and claimed that the victim fabricated the sexual
relationship. The Ramsey County Community Corrections Department completed a
presentence investigation report and recommended a presumptive sentence to the
commissioner of corrections of 144 months, with a lower range of 144 months and an upper
range of 172 months, plus a ten-year conditional release period.
Respondent moved for a downward dispositional departure from the Minnesota
Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 3 (2010), arguing that he
was unlikely to reoffend, had stable employment and a stable family life, did not present a
risk to the public, and was amenable to treatment. At no time in the proceedings did
respondent express any remorse. The state opposed the motion and argued for a 144-month
prison term based upon the seriousness of the crime and the existence of an aggravating
factor. The prosecutor argued that “[t]his crime is very serious. It is one of the most serious
crimes we have on the books and this particular offense is one of the most serious,
interfamilial kinds of sexual abuse that is possible.” The district court granted respondent’s
2 motion for a dispositional departure and imposed a stayed 144-month prison sentence. The
district court judge stated that respondent’s recidivism rate “is about as low as it can get”
and further stated:
I find the substantial and compelling reasons for this departure are that [respondent] is amenable to treatment, amenable to probation, lack of a felony record at his age. He has family support, he has the ability to obtain meaningful employment, and I believe he will cooperate completely with probation.
The state appeals, claiming the district court abused its discretion by granting a
dispositional departure.
DECISION
We review a district court’s decision to depart from the sentencing guidelines for an
abuse of discretion. State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014). The Minnesota
Sentencing Guidelines limit the district court’s discretion by “prescribing a sentence or
range of sentences that is ‘presumed to be appropriate.’” Id. at 308 (quoting Minn. Sent.
Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012)). Thus, a district court “must pronounce a sentence within the
applicable range” articulated by the sentencing guidelines “unless there exist identifiable,
substantial, and compelling circumstances” distinguishing the case. Id. (quotation
omitted).
If the district court departs from a presumptive sentence, “it must exercise that
discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” State v.
Mendoza, 638 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2002).
This court examines the record to determine if the reasons given by the district court justify
the departure. Black v. State, 725 N.W.2d 772, 777 (Minn. App. 2007). If the reasons
3 given are improper or inadequate but there is sufficient evidence in the record to justify the
departure, this court will affirm. Id. However, “[i]f the reasons given are improper or
inadequate and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure, the departure
will be reversed.” State v. Geller, 665 N.W.2d 514, 516 (Minn. 2003).
The state argues the district court’s dispositional departure should be reversed for
three reasons: (1) the district court failed to make the necessary factual finding that
respondent was particularly amenable to probation, (2) the facts do not establish that
respondent was particularly amenable to probation, and (3) a probationary sentence is
disproportional to the severity of the offense. We agree with the state and reverse and
remand for resentencing.
I.
The state argues that the district court erred by staying respondent’s prison sentence
without first determining that he was particularly amenable to probation. Although the
district court found that respondent was “amenable to probation,” it failed to make an
explicit factual finding that respondent was particularly amenable to probation. “[A]
defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting will
justify departure in the form of a stay of execution of a presumptively executed sentence.”
Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 308 (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted). The Soto decision
instructs that being amenable to probation—as opposed to being particularly amenable to
probation—is insufficient to justify a departure. See id. at 308-09. Requiring a defendant
to be particularly amenable to probation “ensure[s] that the defendant’s amenability to
probation distinguishes the defendant from most others and truly presents the substantial
4 and compelling circumstances that are necessary to justify a departure.” Id. at 309
(quotations omitted). The district court erred by departing from the presumptive sentence
without a particular-amenability finding.
II.
The state further claims that the district court abused its discretion by granting a
dispositional departure because the facts do not establish respondent’s particular
amenability to probation. We agree. While we “afford the [district] court great discretion
in the imposition of sentences,” id. at 307-08 (quotation omitted), this court may interfere
with the district court’s decision if it failed to “carefully evaluate[] all the testimony and
information presented before making a determination.” State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251,
255 (Minn. App. 2011).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A15-1456
State of Minnesota, Appellant,
vs.
Jonathon Michael Honeycutt, Respondent.
Filed January 25, 2016 Reversed and remanded Reilly, Judge
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CR-14-486
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Thomas R. Ragatz, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Mark J. Miller, Mark J. Miller, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and
Rodenberg, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
REILLY, Judge
The state challenges the district court’s dispositional departure from the
presumptive prison sentence for respondent’s conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Because the district court’s factual findings are not supported by the record, we
reverse and remand for resentencing.
FACTS
Following a jury trial, respondent Jonathon Michael Honeycutt was found guilty of
first-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(h)(iii) (2010),
stemming from ongoing sexual contact between respondent and his then-13-year-old niece.
The jury also found an aggravating factor of “multiple (more than one) forms or types of
sexual penetration committed against the victim.” Throughout the trial and sentencing,
respondent denied any wrongdoing and claimed that the victim fabricated the sexual
relationship. The Ramsey County Community Corrections Department completed a
presentence investigation report and recommended a presumptive sentence to the
commissioner of corrections of 144 months, with a lower range of 144 months and an upper
range of 172 months, plus a ten-year conditional release period.
Respondent moved for a downward dispositional departure from the Minnesota
Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 3 (2010), arguing that he
was unlikely to reoffend, had stable employment and a stable family life, did not present a
risk to the public, and was amenable to treatment. At no time in the proceedings did
respondent express any remorse. The state opposed the motion and argued for a 144-month
prison term based upon the seriousness of the crime and the existence of an aggravating
factor. The prosecutor argued that “[t]his crime is very serious. It is one of the most serious
crimes we have on the books and this particular offense is one of the most serious,
interfamilial kinds of sexual abuse that is possible.” The district court granted respondent’s
2 motion for a dispositional departure and imposed a stayed 144-month prison sentence. The
district court judge stated that respondent’s recidivism rate “is about as low as it can get”
and further stated:
I find the substantial and compelling reasons for this departure are that [respondent] is amenable to treatment, amenable to probation, lack of a felony record at his age. He has family support, he has the ability to obtain meaningful employment, and I believe he will cooperate completely with probation.
The state appeals, claiming the district court abused its discretion by granting a
dispositional departure.
DECISION
We review a district court’s decision to depart from the sentencing guidelines for an
abuse of discretion. State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014). The Minnesota
Sentencing Guidelines limit the district court’s discretion by “prescribing a sentence or
range of sentences that is ‘presumed to be appropriate.’” Id. at 308 (quoting Minn. Sent.
Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012)). Thus, a district court “must pronounce a sentence within the
applicable range” articulated by the sentencing guidelines “unless there exist identifiable,
substantial, and compelling circumstances” distinguishing the case. Id. (quotation
omitted).
If the district court departs from a presumptive sentence, “it must exercise that
discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” State v.
Mendoza, 638 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2002).
This court examines the record to determine if the reasons given by the district court justify
the departure. Black v. State, 725 N.W.2d 772, 777 (Minn. App. 2007). If the reasons
3 given are improper or inadequate but there is sufficient evidence in the record to justify the
departure, this court will affirm. Id. However, “[i]f the reasons given are improper or
inadequate and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure, the departure
will be reversed.” State v. Geller, 665 N.W.2d 514, 516 (Minn. 2003).
The state argues the district court’s dispositional departure should be reversed for
three reasons: (1) the district court failed to make the necessary factual finding that
respondent was particularly amenable to probation, (2) the facts do not establish that
respondent was particularly amenable to probation, and (3) a probationary sentence is
disproportional to the severity of the offense. We agree with the state and reverse and
remand for resentencing.
I.
The state argues that the district court erred by staying respondent’s prison sentence
without first determining that he was particularly amenable to probation. Although the
district court found that respondent was “amenable to probation,” it failed to make an
explicit factual finding that respondent was particularly amenable to probation. “[A]
defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting will
justify departure in the form of a stay of execution of a presumptively executed sentence.”
Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 308 (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted). The Soto decision
instructs that being amenable to probation—as opposed to being particularly amenable to
probation—is insufficient to justify a departure. See id. at 308-09. Requiring a defendant
to be particularly amenable to probation “ensure[s] that the defendant’s amenability to
probation distinguishes the defendant from most others and truly presents the substantial
4 and compelling circumstances that are necessary to justify a departure.” Id. at 309
(quotations omitted). The district court erred by departing from the presumptive sentence
without a particular-amenability finding.
II.
The state further claims that the district court abused its discretion by granting a
dispositional departure because the facts do not establish respondent’s particular
amenability to probation. We agree. While we “afford the [district] court great discretion
in the imposition of sentences,” id. at 307-08 (quotation omitted), this court may interfere
with the district court’s decision if it failed to “carefully evaluate[] all the testimony and
information presented before making a determination.” State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251,
255 (Minn. App. 2011).
A defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary
setting may support a dispositional departure. Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 308 (quoting State v.
Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982)). The sentencing guidelines set forth a
“nonexclusive list” of mitigating factors that may justify a dispositional departure. Minn.
Sent. Guidelines II.D.2 (2010). Additional factors including “the defendant’s age, his prior
record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of [the
defendant’s] friends and/or family” are also relevant to a determination of whether a
dispositional departure is justified. Trog, 323 N.W.2d at 31. However, the presence of one
or more mitigating factors “[does] not obligate the court to place defendant on probation
or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” State v. Wall, 343 N.W.2d 22, 25
(Minn. 1984).
5 Here, the district court found that “substantial and compelling reasons” justified a
dispositional departure. The district court found that respondent was amenable to treatment
and to probation, citing favorably to his “lack of a felony record at his age,” his “family
support,” and his “ability to obtain meaningful employment.” The district court also
reviewed psychosexual evaluations performed through Ramsey County Community
Corrections and concluded that respondent’s rate of recidivism was “about as low as it can
get.” However, the district court’s decision disregarded certain Trog factors and ignored
other facts in the record. Through the trial and sentencing phases, respondent did not
express remorse for his conduct. Further, the district court’s reliance on respondent’s
“ability to obtain meaningful employment” is misplaced, as the Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines state that “[e]mployment factors” should not be used as reasons for departure
from the presumptive sentence because they are a “manipulable” factors. Minn. Sent.
Guidelines II.D.1 & cmt. II.D.101 (2010).
Substantial and compelling circumstances are those that make a case atypical.
Taylor v. State, 670 N.W.2d 584, 587 (Minn. 2003). Although certain factors support a
dispositional departure, the record taken as a whole does not support the district court’s
decision that “substantial and compelling reasons” justify a departure from the presumptive
prison sentence in this case. Because the reasons given are improper and inadequate and
there is insufficient evidence in the record supporting a departure, see Geller, 665 N.W.2d
at 516, we determine that the district court abused its discretion, and we reverse and remand
for resentencing.
6 III.
Lastly, the state relies on Soto and argues that a probationary sentence “is not
proportional to the severity of [respondent’s] offense.” See Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 313. It is
unnecessary to address the issue because we hold that the district court abused its discretion
by imposing a dispositional departure.
Reversed and remanded.