State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr., 2014 Minn. LEXIS 571

Soto pled guilty to first-degree criminal sexual conduct; the Guidelines prescribed a 12-year executed sentence.
The district court stayed the 12-year sentence and placed Soto on supervised probation for 30 years.
The State appealed; the court of appeals reversed and remanded for execution of the 12-year sentence.
This Court vacated and remanded for resentencing, allowing possible further fact-finding.
Pre-sentence materials showed Soto minimized culpability; diagnostic assessment labeled him an appropriate candidate for outpatient treatment.
The district court relied on Soto’s amenability to probation, Soto’s youth (37), limited prior crimes, remorse, and family support as grounds to depart.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion to depart based on amenability to probation	Soto’s amenability to probation justified a dispositional departure.	Amenability must be 'particular' to probation to justify departure.	Abused discretion; mere amenability is not enough to justify departure.
Whether the diagnostic assessment alone justified the departure	The assessment supported Soto as an appropriate candidate for treatment and thus probation.	Being an appropriate candidate is insufficient without more, such as comparative or best-placement evidence for probation.	Not sufficient by itself to justify departure.
Whether other factors (age, record, remorse, attitude, family support) properly supported the departure	These factors can indicate amenability to probation and support departure.	These factors, if any, should be weighed in determining amenability to individualized treatment.	Record provides little support for 'particular' amenability; factors do not justify presumptive deviation.
Whether the district court failed to address culpability and public-safety effects in departing	Adequate findings on culpability and public safety are not mandatory for departure.	Findings on culpability and public safety are relevant to public-interest considerations in staying a presumptive sentence.	The absence of explicit findings on culpability/public safety supports that the departure was improper.

State v. Spain, 590 N.W.2d 85 (Minn.1999) (deference to trial court sentencing discretion; abuse when misapplied law)
State v. Best, 449 N.W.2d 426 (Minn.1989) (distinguishing aggravating/mitigating circumstances to depart)
State v. McIntosh, 641 N.W.2d 3 (Minn.2002) (abuse where reasons improper or evidence insufficient)
State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28 (Minn.1982) (particular amenability to probation as a basis for stay)
State v. Wright, 310 N.W.2d 461 (Minn.1981) (particular amenability to treatment in probationary setting)
State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660 (Minn.2006) (uniformity and limits on departures; particular amenability language)
State v. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65 (Minn.2002) (all departures must be supported by substantial and compelling circumstances)
State v. Hill v. Hennessy, 328 N.W.2d 442 (Minn.1983) (examples of stayed sentences; treatment considerations)
State v. King, 337 N.W.2d 674 (Minn.1983) (amenability to probation considerations in departure)
State v. Heywood, 338 N.W.2d 243 (Minn.1983) (focus on defendant as individual when justifying dispositional departure)
State v. Clemmer, 328 N.W.2d 739 (Minn.1983) (factors in sentencing departures discussed)
State v. Warren, 592 N.W.2d 440 (Minn.1999) (review of stayed sentence for disproportionate sentencing)