This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (201 4 ).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14
- 1867 State of Minnesota, Respondent,

vs. Bob Matt Jaschke, Appellant.
Filed June 22 , 2015 Affirmed Kirk , Judge
Morrison County District Court File No. 49

- CR

- 13

- 1396

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Brian J. Middendorf, Morrison County Attorney, Little Falls, Minnesota (for respondent) Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Michael W. Kunkel, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Connolly , Presiding Judge; Kirk , Judge; and Smith , Judge

. U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
KIRK , Judge Appellant challenges his prison sentence for second

- degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that a disposi t ional departure was warranted. We affirm the district2

court’s imposition of the presumptive sentence under the Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines.
FACTS
In September 2013, r espondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Bob Matt
Jaschke with one count of second

- degree criminal sexual conduct

. A ppellant plead ed guilty as charged and moved for a downward dispositional departure , seeking probation.
The presentence investigation recommended the presumptive sentence of 90 months in prison. In imposing th e presumptive sentence , the district court described the particularly damaging nature of the abuse, stated that it had reviewed the psychosexual assessment, and emphasized the importance of c onsistent sentencing statewide. This appeal follows

. D E C I S I O N
A sentencing court may exercise its discretion to depart from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines “ only if aggravating or mitiga ting circumstances are present, and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence. ” State v. Soto , 855 N.W.2d 303, 3 08 (Minn. 2014) (cit ations and quotations omitted). However, the district court is not obligated to depart even if mitigating factors are present. State v. Bertsch , 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn. 2 006). Only
in a “rare case ” will a reviewing court reverse a district court’ s impositi on of the presumptive sentence. State v. Kindem , 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981).
T he record does not support appellant ’s contention that the district court abused its
discr etion by denying him a dow nward dispositional departure. While appellant lacks a prior criminal record, cooperated during the investigation, and exhibited some remorse,3

he also repeatedly minimized his culpabil ity, even after pleading guilty, and his apology during the sentencing hearing reflected his primary rational ization of the sexual contact. Further, t he psychosexual assessment contains reason to doubt his treatment prospects, and, as in Soto , the assessor s did not recommend probation for appellant , “ draw any
conclusions about whether it would be better for [ him ] to receive treatment while on probation than while incarcerated, or compare [ his ] amenability to probation to that of
other s convicted of sexual a ssault. ” 855 N.W.2d at 309. At 3 8 years old , appellant wa s not of an age suggesting partic ular amenability to probation. See i d. at 310 ( reject ing the
district court’s conclusion that the appellant’s age , 37, made him amenable to probation ); State v. Trog , 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982) (listing factors for considering amenability to probation , including age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family ). The record contains little information
suggest ing that appellant has family support and no evidence of support from friends.
While there is no record that appellant exhibited a poor a ttitude in court, there also is no indication that he comported himself in an exemplary manner. 1

T aken as a whole, the record supports the district court’ s determination that no
substantial and co mpelling reasons support ed a dispo sitional departure. This is not a “ rare

case ” compelling this court to reverse the dist rict court’s imposition of the presumptive

sentence. See Kindem , 313 N.W.2d at 7.
Affirmed.

1 We have also considered the arguments in appellant’s pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they have no legal merit.