This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (201 2 ). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13
- 1950 State of Minnesota, Respondent,

vs. Tyrece Curtis Matthews, Appellant. Filed August 11, 2014 Affirmed Johnson , Judge Ramsey County District Court File No. 62

- CR

- 1 3

- 695
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Kaarin Long, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent) Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sean M. McGuire, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Chutich , Presiding Judge; Johnson , Judge; and Reilly , Judge

.2 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N JOHNSON , Judge Tyrece Curtis Matthews punched his former girlfriend in the fa ce, causing a severe and permanent injury to her left eye . After pleading guilty to first

- degree assault, Matthews requested a downward dispositional departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence. The district court denied his request and imposed th e minimum presumptive guidelines sentence of 74 months of imprisonment. We affirm. FACTS On January 23, 2013, Matthews was staying at a motel in the city of St. Paul with his former girlfriend, S.H. During an argument, Matthews punched S.H. in the face

. S.H. ble d and experienced severe pain. Matthews drove her to a hospital, where doctors discovered that her left “eye globe was ruptured, with an L

- shaped tear from the 12 o’clock position through the pupil to the 9 o’clock position.” Even after surger y , S.H. has permanent damage to her left eye, including vision loss.
T he state charged Matthews with first

- degree assault, in violation of Minn. St at. § 609.221, subd. 1 (2012). In March 2 013, Matthews pleaded guilty. In April 2013, Matthews requested a downward disposition al departure , specifically, probation in lieu of the presumptive guidelines sentence. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines 4.A (2012). The district court held a sentencing hearing in June 2013. Matthews’s attorney argued that probation wa s appropriate because of Matthews ’s lo ngstanding mental

- health issues, asserting that he c ould be better treated by Ramsey County Mental Health Services than by the department of corrections

. Matthews requested a continuance to3

more fully develop a treatm ent plan with the c ounty . T he district court granted his request for a continuance over t he state’s objection.
The district court resumed the sen tencing hearing in July 2013. Matthews’s attorney was unable to outline the specific services and programm ing available to Matthews if he were on probation. He nonetheless reiterated his argument that Matthews

s hould be placed on probation. The district court denied Matthews’s request for a
d ownward dispositional departure and sentenced him to 74 months of i m prison ment , the minimum presumptive sentence ( i.e. , bottom of the box sentence ) for a conviction of first

- degree assault with a cr iminal

- history score of zero. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines
4.A. Ma tthews appeals. D E C I S I O N Matthews argues that the district court erred by denying his request for a down ward dispositional departure. A district court must order the presumptive sentence provided by the sentencing guidelines unless there are “substantial and compelling circumstances” to warrant a depar tu re. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D ; State v. Kindem , 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981). A departure from the guidelines in the form of a stay of execution of a sentence may be justified by a “defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a
p robationary setting.” State v. Trog , 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982). In determining whether a defendant is amenable to probation so as to justify a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider the factors outlined in Trog , including “t he defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court,4

and the support of friends and/or family.” Id. The district court’s focus is “on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.” State v. Heywood , 338 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn. 1983). A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to depart from the sentencing guidelines. Kindem , 313 N.W.2d at 7. Nonetheless, a district court must “d eliberately consider[]” the factors that are offered by a defendant in support of a motion for a downward dispositional departure. State v. Curtiss , 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984) (holding that district court erred by ignoring arguments for departu re). But a district court need not discuss all the Trog factors, State v. Pegel , 795 N.W.2d 251, 253 (Minn. App. 2011), and the mere fact that a “mitigating factor is present . . . does not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation,” id. at 2 5 3

- 5 4 (quotation omitted).
A district court’s refusal to depart from the sentencing guidelines will not be reversed
absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Givens , 544 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Minn. 1996). Only in a “rare” case will a reviewing court rever se a district court’s imposition of a presumptive sentence. Kindem , 313 N.W.2d at 7.
T he record indicates that the district court carefully considered Matthews’s argument that he would be better able to obtain mental

- health services if he were not impris oned . During the first hearing, the district court acknowledged the potential merit
of Matthew s ’s arguments b ut also expressed concern about public safety. T he district court told Matthews that he needed to present a specific pla n for probationary treatment. Over the state’s objection, the district court granted Matthews a two

- week continuance to develop such a plan. W hen Matthews was unable to present a specific treatment plan , the5

district court expressly weighed the benefit s of probation against concerns about public safety : I did read what you sent me, Mr. Matthews. And you

know, I have listened, and I have been thinking about the motions that have been ma de for you by [your attorney].

. . . If I had a better

— if I had so me hope that there would be some help for you somewhere, then I might be more inclined to consider what he’s asking here. But the reality of the situation is that if I put you on probation, you’ll be out, you still wouldn’t get the services that you need. You’ll get yourself into a situation, and you’ll hurt somebody else. And I can’t risk that. I believe you when you tell me you did not mean to hurt her the way that you hurt her. I don’t believe that you intended to cause blindness in one of her eye s. But you struck her hard enough to do that. And that’s what’s scary.

. . . .

. . . . I have to be able to have enough here to justify departure from the guidelines. Absent that I can’t do it. And I just don’t think I have enough to be able to do it today. . . . I will . . . give you some consideration because you did plead guilty, you accepted responsibility, expressed remorse. But I cannot justify deviating from the guidelines as far as [your] recommended sentence here

. Based on our review of this portion of the transcript as well as the entire transcript, w e are satisfied that t he district court “deliberately exercise d its discretion.” See Pegel , 795 N.W.2d at 255. Matthews ’s argument for reversal focuse s on one particular statement that the district court made during the sentencing hearing . At one point, the district court stated that when a person is placed on probation, “usually, . . . someb ody gets hurt along the way.” Matthews contends that this statement shows that the district cou rt weighed6

“Matthews’s need for probation against the success and failure rat e of those other defendants.” Matthews contends that this statement indicates error because a district court is required to focus on the specific facts of this case, not on the c onduct of other defendants. The excerpt on which Matthews relies is only one small snippet of sentencing proceedings that occupy approxim ately 30 pages of transcript. Furthermore, Matthews’s argument does not reveal the full context of the district court’s statement. In response to the suggestion that Matthews would benefit from long

- term probation, the district court stated : I’ve done that in the past, counsel. And what usually

happens is somebody gets hurt along the way . And then that person en ds up going to prison for an extensive sentence. [I]t’s the possibility that somebody else is going to get hurt. That’s wha t I need to be concerned about. (Emphasis added.) T he district court did refer to its past experience with other cases but

not in a way that is prohibited. A district court judge is expected to rely on his or her experience as a basis for good judicial decision

- making . The relevant question is whether district court considered the Trog factors, considered “the defendant as an in dividual , ” and considered “whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.” Heywood , 338 N.W.2d at 244. The record as a whole reflects that the district court gave very careful consideration to the particular features of Matthews’ s case and to his argument that he should be placed on probation. The district court’s reasons for denying Matthews’s request are valid and well within the district court’s discretion.7

In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ma tthews’s request for a downward dispositional departure. Affirmed.