68-CR-24-224

Filed in District Court

State of Minnesota
1/31/2025 7:06 PM

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT

NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF ROSEAU CRIMINAL DIVISION

COURT FILE NO.: 68-CR-24-224

________________________________

State of Minnesota,

Plaintiff,
THE STATE’S RESPONSE TO THE
DEFENDANT’S MOTION
vs.

Jonathan Lee Johnson,

Defendant.
_______________________________

TO: The Honorable Donna K. Dixon & Blair W. Nelson, Attorney at Law, 205 7th Street NW
#3, Bemidji, MN 56601, Defense Counsel for the above-entitled Defendant.

This matter will come before this Court on February 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. for a contested

sentencing hearing pursuant to Rule 27.03 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The State is

opposed to the Defendant’s request that this Court grant the Defendant a downward dispositional

departure from sentencing guidelines.

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines establish presumptive sentences for felony

offenses. See Minn. Stat. § 244.09, subd. 5 (2019). A dispositional departure places the offender

in a different setting than that called for by the presumptive guidelines sentence. Minn. Sent.

Guidelines 1.B.5.a (2019). This Defendant has committed the crime of criminal sexual conduct in

the first degree. Under Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, an offender convicted of this offense,

who has no prior felony criminal history points, is subject to a guideline sentence of 144 months.

Minn. Sent. Guidelines 4.B. (2019). In addition, the statute requires that an offender who commits

1
 68-CR-24-224
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
1/31/2025 7:06 PM

criminal sexual conduct in the first degree be sentenced to an executed sentence of 144 months.

See Minn. Stat. §609.342 Subd. 2(b).

This Court should not depart from the sentencing guidelines. A sentence prescribed under

the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines is presumed to be appropriate. State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d at

308. At sentencing, the Defendant will be asking for a mitigated dispositional departure. A

mitigated dispositional departure is when the Guidelines recommend a prison sentence but the

court stays that sentence. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines 1 Subd. B 5. (2). Such a departure is not

controlled by the guidelines but is an exercise of judicial discretion controlled by statute and case

law. Id. at 2 D. 1. Even if mitigating factors are present, this Court is not obligated to depart from

the guidelines. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2D 1. See also State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251, 254 (Minn.

App. 2011).

Although the Sentencing Guidelines do not control departures, they do provide guidance.

The Guidelines state that when “substantial and compelling” circumstances are present, a judge

“may” depart. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2D 1. See also State v. Solberg, 882 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Minn.

2016). Substantial and compelling circumstances are those that make a case atypical. State v.

Walker, 913 N.W.2d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018).

Departures from the guidelines are discouraged and are intended to apply to a small number

of cases. State v. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65, 68 (Minn. 2002). Even if reasons for departing

downward from the presumptive guidelines sentence exist, in the event of an appeal, an appellate

court will usually not disturb the district court's sentencing decision. See State v. Dokken, 478

N.W.2d 914, 918 (Minn. App. 1992). This is not an “atypical” or rare case, and this Court should

not depart from the sentencing guidelines.

2
 68-CR-24-224
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
1/31/2025 7:06 PM

The Defendant’s crime has caused the victims harm and emotional pain, so it is proper for

this Court to impose the guideline sentence. The Defendant argues that he is an atypical offender.

He asserts that he should be placed on probation because he has taken responsibility for his offense,

cooperated with the investigation and court proceedings, and has the support of family members.

Lastly, he argues that the evaluation he obtained suggests that he is amenable to probation and

outpatient sex offender treatment. In State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982) the MN

Supreme Court held that, "the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his

attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family, are relevant to a determination

whether a defendant is particularly amenable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.

Despite Appellant’s argument, this Court is free to decide that this is not an atypical case for a

departure.

Despite that the evaluation determines that he is a low recidivism risk and capable of

creating therapeutic change through outpatient treatment, these recommendations do not make him

particularly amenable to probation and do not justify departure. See State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d at

310. This Court, while considering a departure, may analyze both offender and offense related

factors. State v. Walker, 913 N.W.2d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018) (Citing State v. Behl, 573

N.W.2d 711, 713 (Minn. App. 1998). This Court should determine that the offender based

mitigating circumstances put forth by the Defendant are not substantial and compelling enough to

justify a departure when compared to the seriousness of the offense and the harm it caused to the

victims. This Court has the discretion to sentence the Defendant to the presumptive sentence

required by the guidelines and State law.

The Defendant’s criminal offense is a serious one that has a devastating effect on the

victims. After reviewing the presentence investigation, the Defendant’s evaluation, and hearing

3
 68-CR-24-224
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
1/31/2025 7:06 PM

the victim impact statements, and arguments from the parties, this Court should conclude that there

are not compelling or substantial circumstances to support a dispositional departure and that the

Defendant is not particularly amenable to probation. This Court can analyze and evaluate the

evidence the Defendant will put forth to support a departure and still decide that a departure is not

warranted. It is well within this Court’s discretion to decide that this case is not the rare or atypical

case meriting departure. State v. Walker, 913 N.W.2d at 468. Certainly, this Court should

deliberately consider the circumstances for and against departure. However, the mere fact that

mitigating factors exist does not obligate this Court to depart from the guideline sentence. Id.

The Defendant’s offender based mitigating circumstances are not substantial or compelling

enough to justify departure. The offense committed by the Defendant was too serious and its effect

on the victims is too great to support a departure. Id. It is within this Court’s discretion to sentence

the Defendant to the guideline sentence. State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 308.

CONCLUSION

This Court should find that the circumstances do not warrant a departure from sentencing

guidelines.

DATED: 1/31/2025 Respectfully submitted,

By: Michael P. Grover

Michael P. Grover
Assistant County Attorney
Attorney ID: #0320146
606 5th Ave. SW, Room #10
Roseau, MN 56751
(218) 463-4100