This opinion will be unpublished and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

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 dispositional departure was warranted. We affirm the district 
2

court’s imposition of the presumptive sentence under the Minnesota Sentencing 

Guidelines.

FACTS

In September 2013, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Bob Matt

Jaschke with one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. Appellant pleaded

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 the 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 consistent 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 mitigating 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, 308 (Minn. 2014) (citations 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. 2006). Only 

in a “rare case” will a reviewing court reverse a district court’s imposition of the 

presumptive sentence. State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981).

The record does not support appellant’s contention that the district court abused its 

discretion by denying him a downward dispositional departure. While appellant lacks a 

prior criminal record, cooperated during the investigation, and exhibited some remorse, 
3

he also repeatedly minimized his culpability, even after pleading guilty, and his apology 

during the sentencing hearing reflected his primary rationalization of the sexual contact. 

Further, the psychosexual assessment contains reason to doubt his treatment prospects,

and, as in Soto, the assessors 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 

others convicted of sexual assault.” 855 N.W.2d at 309. At 38 years old, appellant was 

not of an age suggesting particular amenability to probation. See id. at 310 (rejecting 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 

suggesting that appellant has family support and no evidence of support from friends. 

While there is no record that appellant exhibited a poor attitude in court, there also is no 

indication that he comported himself in an exemplary manner.1

Taken as a whole, the record supports the district court’s determination that no

substantial and compelling reasons supported a dispositional departure. This is not a “rare 

case” compelling this court to reverse the district 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.