This opinion will be unpublished and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.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
KIRK, Judge
Appellant challenges his prison sentence for second-degree criminal sexual
conduct, arguing that a dispositional departure was warranted. We affirm the district
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.
DECISION
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,
2
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.
3
State of Minnesota v. Bob Matt Jaschke
Combined Opinion