This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A16-1117

State of Minnesota, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

Anthony Ra Hare, 

Respondent.

Filed January 30, 2017

Reversed and remanded

Jesson, Judge

Ramsey County District Court

File No. 62-CR-15-9082

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

John Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Thomas Ragatz, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, 

Minnesota (for appellant)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Veronica M. Surges, Assistant 

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

Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Schellhas, 

Judge. 

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

JESSON, Judge

In this sentencing appeal, appellant State of Minnesota challenges the district court’s 

imposition of a 48-month stayed sentence for first-degree aggravated robbery, which 
2

constitutes a downward dispositional departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence 

of 48 months in prison. Because the district court abused its discretion by failing to find 

substantial and compelling circumstances to justify a sentencing departure, we reverse and 

remand for resentencing. 

FACTS

Respondent Anthony Ra Hare pleaded guilty to first-degree aggravated robbery for 

his role in an incident in November 2015, when he took the victim’s shoes and wallet at 

gunpoint. See Minn. Stat. § 609.245, subd. 1 (2014). The guidelines sentence for a 

conviction of first-degree aggravated robbery is 48 months for a defendant with a criminal 

history score of zero. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 4.A (2015). At sentencing, Hare moved for 

a downward dispositional departure, explaining that he was remorseful and had no criminal 

history. Further, while on release pending sentencing, he applied for employment and reenrolled in high school while under the tutelage of his family and other community 

members. The state recommended the guidelines sentence, arguing that Hare minimized 

his involvement with the offense, did not accept responsibility, and showed no remorse for 

committing an extremely dangerous offense.

Before pronouncing sentence, the district court expressly found that “Hare hasn’t 

been able to demonstrate particular amenability to probation” and that there were no 

“substantial, unique, and compelling circumstances in this case.” Nonetheless, the district 

court granted Hare’s motion for a downward dispositional departure, finding him amenable 

to probation, although the district court told Hare, “Whether or not you are uniquely 

amenable is something that’s going to be up to you to prove.” The district court stayed 
3

execution of a 48-month prison term for 20 years and ordered him to serve 365 days in jail, 

with credit for time served. The district court explained:

I am, and I recognize it’s not part of the rules, taking into 

account your young age, your community support, given the 

strong support you have from your father. The fact that you 

seem on the verge of understanding the significance of what 

happened here and how damaging it is to the community, to the 

life of the person you attacked and your own life. And I’m just 

finding this to be a situation where I want to take a chance on 

you. But, it’s not very well supported by what you have done 

so far.

The district court also noted that “in ordering the departure . . . I’m actually going 

beyond what is permitted.” This appeal follows. 

D E C I S I O N

We review the district court’s departure from a presumptive sentence for an abuse 

of discretion. State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014). The sentences or 

ranges of sentences in the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines are presumed to be 

appropriate. Id. at 308. While the district court has great discretion when imposing a 

sentence, the court must pronounce a guidelines sentence “unless there exist identifiable, 

substantial, and compelling circumstances.” Id. (quotation omitted). By requiring the 

district court to find substantial and compelling circumstances before departure, the 

sentencing guidelines promote rationality, predictability, and consistency in sentencing. 

See State v. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65-68 (Minn. 2002) (explaining that the purpose of 

the guidelines is to reduce sentencing disparity); Minn. Sent. Guidelines 1.A (2015). The 

district court must provide reasons why the departure is more appropriate than the 

presumptive sentence. Taylor v. State, 670 N.W.2d 584, 588 (Minn. 2003). Absent such 
4

a finding of substantial and compelling circumstances, the district court abuses its 

discretion. Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 308. 

Here, the district court’s reason for a departure was that Hare may be amenable to 

probation, taking into account his age and support from the community, especially from 

his father. But the district court did not make a finding of substantial and compelling 

circumstances in this case. Instead, the district court departed from the presumptive 

guidelines sentence even after it specifically found that these factors did not present 

“substantial, unique and compelling circumstances in this case.” 

Hare argues that the district court’s action in sentencing him to probation shows that 

the district court considered him particularly amenable to probation and that the record 

supports this finding. But it is not for this court to make findings regarding Hare’s 

circumstances. That is the province of the district court. See Fontaine v. Steen, 759 

N.W.2d 672, 679 (Minn. App. 2009). Without these findings, a departure from a 

presumptive sentence is an abuse of discretion. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d at 72. This is 

not to suggest that the district court’s failure to use the specific word “particularly” or 

“particular” as a qualifier in reference to Hare’s amenability to probation is dispositive. 

Appellate courts will not reverse a sentencing decision “as long as the record shows the 

sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before 

making a determination.” State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251, 255 (Minn. App. 2011)

(quotation omitted). But this record does not reflect that careful evaluation. It reflects an 

attempt at judicial clemency beyond what the law permits, as the district court recognized 

when granting the sentencing departure. 
5

While the district court identified mitigating factors in Hare’s case, because it failed 

to find that those factors presented a substantial or compelling reason to depart from the 

guidelines sentence, we reverse and remand for resentencing. 

Reversed and remanded.