Opinion
A23-0295
10-03-2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Dustin Paul Goldman, Appellant.
Scott County District Court File No. 70-CR-21-13591
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge. [*]
ORDER OPINION
Renee L. Worke, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Dustin Paul Goldman pleaded guilty to four counts of dissemination of pornographic work involving minors. See Minn. Stat. § 617.247, subd. 3(a) (2020). The district court denied Goldman's motion for a downward dispositional departure and imposed the presumptive executed sentence of 78 months in prison. See Minn. Sent'g Guidelines 4.B (2020). Goldman appealed.
2. District courts are afforded a great deal of discretion in the imposition of sentences, and appellate courts review for an abuse of that discretion. State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014). A "reviewing court may not interfere with the sentencing court's exercise of discretion, 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).
3. A district court may depart from the 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." Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 308 (emphasis omitted) (quotations and citations omitted); Minn. Sent'g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020). A dispositional departure is generally based on characteristics of the defendant that show whether that defendant is particularly amenable to probation which may constitute a substantial and compelling reason for a downward dispositional departure. State v. Solberg, 882 N.W.2d 618, 623-24 (Minn. 2016). But even if substantial and compelling circumstances are present, a district court is not required to depart from the guidelines. State v. Walker, 913 N.W.2d 463, 468 (Minn.App. 2018); Minn. Sent'g Guidelines 2.D.1.
4. Goldman argues that the district court abused its discretion by relying on its "gut instinct" about Goldman's psychosexual evaluation instead of the results of the psychosexual reports.
5. The record shows that the district court carefully considered all the evidence, including reviewing the psychosexual evaluation three times. The district court also considered other factors, such as Goldman's remorse, whether he had accepted responsibility for his actions, his familial support, and his amenability to treatment. See Pegel, 795 N.W.2d at 255 (explaining that this court will affirm the imposition of a presumptive sentence "as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination" (quotation omitted)). But the district court concluded that it had concerns about his psychosexual evaluation and whether he had taken responsibility for his conduct. Thus, the district court concluded that based on the record, Goldman did "not meet the standard and threshold for particular amenability." Accordingly, the district court then denied the motion and imposed a presumptive sentence.
6. Goldman essentially asks this court to reweigh the evidence and find in his favor. But because that is not the role of an appellate court, we decline to do so. See State v. Vang, 847 N.W.2d 248, 264 (Minn. 2014) (stating that an appellate court may not substitute its own discretion for that of the district court).
7. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Goldman's request for a downward dispositional departure.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.