This opinion will be unpublished and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

A15-0119

State of Minnesota, 

Respondent, 

vs. 

Yia Her, 

Appellant.

Filed January 19, 2016

Affirmed

Peterson, Judge

Hennepin County District Court

File No. 27-CR-13-29629

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and 

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Jean Burdorf, Assistant County 

Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Stephen L. Smith, Assistant 

Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Reyes, 

Judge. 

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

PETERSON, Judge

In this appeal following convictions of fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle 

causing death and fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle causing great bodily harm, 
2

appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a 198-month 

sentence on the first count, which appellant contends was an 18-month upward durational 

departure but was actually within the presumptive-sentence range. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Yia Her was charged with one count each of fleeing a police officer in a 

motor vehicle causing death in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.487, subd. 4(a) (2012), and 

fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle causing great bodily harm in violation of Minn. 

Stat. § 609.487, subd. 4(b) (2012). Her pleaded guilty to both offenses. The district court 

sentenced Her to consecutive terms of 198 months in prison for count one and 21 months 

in prison for count two. This appeal followed.

D E C I S I O N

This court reviews sentences imposed by the district court for an abuse of discretion. 

State v. Delk, 781 N.W.2d 426, 428 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. July 20, 

2010). 

Under the sentencing guidelines, sentences are 

determined by use of a grid system. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 

IV. The vertical axis on the grid tracks the severity of the 

offense, while the horizontal axis tracks the offender’s criminal 

history. To determine the proper sentence to be imposed in any 

given case, a sentencing court locates the cell on the grid that 

corresponds to the offense level and the offender’s criminal 

history. Not counting the cells applicable to relatively minor 

offenses, each cell on the grid contains three different numbers. 

The lowest number is the minimum guidelines sentence for that 

particular cell, the highest number is the maximum guidelines 

sentence, and the middle number is what might be referred to 

as the “presumptive fixed sentence.” . . . All three numbers 

in any given cell constitute an acceptable sentence based solely 

on the offense at issue and the offender’s criminal history 
3

score-the lowest is not a downward departure, nor is the highest 

an upward departure. Minn. Sent. Guidelines IV.

State v. Jackson, 749 N.W.2d 353, 359 n.2 (Minn. 2008). 

“The sentence ranges provided in the Grids are presumed to be appropriate for the 

crimes to which they apply.” Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012). Absent “identifiable, 

substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a sentence outside the appropriate 

range on the applicable Grid,” the district court must impose the presumptive guidelines 

sentence. Id. But, “any sentence within the presumptive range for the convicted offense 

constitutes a presumptive sentence.” Delk, 781 N.W.2d at 428.

Her had a criminal-history score of two, and fleeing a police officer causing death 

is a severity-level-ten offense. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 5.A (2012). The presumptive 

guidelines range for a person with a criminal-history score of two who commits a severitylevel-ten offense is 153 to 216 months, and the “presumptive fixed sentence” within that 

range is 180 months. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 4.A (2012). Her analyzes this case as an 

upward durational sentencing departure and argues that he is entitled to reversal of his 

sentence because “the [district] court cites nothing that makes Her’s conduct atypical from 

those charged with similar offenses.” But Her’s 198-month sentence is within the 

guidelines range, and his sentence is not an upward departure. 

A district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive 

sentence, and we may not interfere with the district court’s exercise of discretion so long 

as “the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and 

information presented before making a determination.” State v. Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d 
4

77, 80-81 (Minn. App. 1985). “[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of 

the refusal to depart.” State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981). The record shows 

that the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented 

before making its sentencing decision.

Affirmed.