This opinion will be unpublished and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
A14-0872
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
vs.
Patrick Lee Goettig,
Appellant.
Filed February 23, 2015
Affirmed
Smith, Judge
Crow Wing County District Court
File No. 18-CR-12-4530
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Donald F. Ryan, Crow Wing County Attorney, Rockwell J. Wells, Assistant County
Attorney, Brainerd, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Stephen L. Smith, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Chutich, Judge; and
Smith, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SMITH, Judge
We affirm the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion for a downward
dispositional departure because the district court sufficiently considered factors weighing
for and against departure.
FACTS
In October 2013, appellant Patrick Lee Goettig pleaded guilty to first-degree
criminal sexual conduct (significant relationship and multiple instances of sexual abuse).
During the plea hearing, Goettig admitted that he had sexually abused his girlfriend’s
preteen daughter multiple times from 2001 to 2006.
The state recommended an executed 144-month prison sentence. Goettig moved
the district court for a stayed execution of his prison sentence, a downward dispositional
departure. He told the district court that he had voluntarily entered treatment at his own
expense and that the victim’s maternal grandmother believed that he should continue
treatment rather than be sent to prison.
The district court denied Goettig’s motion. It highlighted the “particular
vulnerability of the victim” resulting from her young age, that Goettig’s conduct involved
“[m]ultiple forms of penetration,” and that Goettig had “use[d] a position of trust to
accomplish the act” by bribing the victim. It also noted Goettig’s acceptance of
responsibility, his voluntary entrance into sex-offender treatment, and the opinion of the
victim’s maternal grandmother that Goettig’s incarceration might further harm the victim.
2
But “balancing the factors that exist in this case,” the district court concluded that there
were no “substantial and compelling reasons that justify a dispositional departure.”
During a sentencing hearing, the district court accepted Goettig’s statement that he
was paying more child support than previously reported, but it concluded that “even with
that correction, that would not change [its] final determination.” It sentenced Goettig to
144 months’ incarceration.
DECISION
Goettig argues that the district court “gave undue emphasis to the age of the
victim” when it denied his motion for a downward dispositional departure. A district
court has “broad discretion” when considering a sentencing departure, and reversal of a
refusal to depart is warranted only in “a rare case.” State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7
(Minn. 1981). A district court must, however, consider reasons for departure rather than
summarily dismissing them. State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984).
The record shows that the district court weighed both aggravating and mitigating
factors. It specifically acknowledged the factors that Goettig identifies—his voluntary
entrance into sex-offender treatment and the fact that his victim benefitted from his child-
support payments. But it also weighed the victim’s vulnerability and Goettig’s
exploitation of his position of trust, determining that these factors outweigh those Goettig
highlights. When the record supports reasons to both depart and not to depart, it is within
the discretion of the district court to deny departure. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d at 8. We
therefore affirm Goettig’s sentence.
Affirmed.
3