This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. ß 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C5-02-228

 

State of Minnesota,

Appellant,

 

vs.

 

Rose Marie Hatton,

Respondent.

 

Filed July 2, 2002

Affirmed

Kalitowski, Judge

 

Beltrami County District Court

File No. K701556

 

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103; and

 

Timothy R. Favor, Beltrami County Attorney, Eric Schieferdecker, Assistant County Attorney, 619 Beltrami Avenue Northwest, Suite 40, Bemidji, MN 56601 (for appellant)

 

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Leslie J. Rosenberg, Assistant Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414-3230 (for respondent)

 

††††††††††† Considered and decided by Lansing, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Anderson, Judge.


U N P U B L I S H E D†† O P I N I O N

KALITOWSKI, Judge

Appellant State of Minnesota argues that the district court abused its discretion when it granted a downward dispositional departure in the sentencing of respondent Rose Marie Hatton following her conviction of criminal vehicular homicide.† We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

 

Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in granting respondent a downward dispositional departure because the record does not support the courtís finding that respondent is amenable to probation.† We disagree.

Decisions to depart from the sentencing guidelines rest within the district courtís broad discretion and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.† State v. Givens, 544 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Minn. 1996); State v. Barsness, 473 N.W.2d 325, 329 (Minn. App. 1991), review denied (Minn. Aug. 29, 1991).† A reviewing court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the district court regarding sentencing matters.† State v. Sejnoha, 512 N.W.2d 597, 601 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Apr. 21, 1994).

††††††††††† The sentencing court may depart if the defendant is ďparticularly amenable to probation or if offense-related mitigating circumstances are present.Ē† State v. Love, 350 N.W.2d 359, 361 (Minn. 1984).† A decision whether to depart dispositionally focuses ďmore on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.Ē† State v. Heywood, 338 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn. 1983).† Furthermore,

[n]umerous factors, including the defendantís 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 suitable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.

 

State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982).

††††††††††† Here, the sentencing court based its departure in part on respondentís remorse and her amenability to probation.† Respondentís therapist testified that respondent is genuinely remorseful about the victimís death as evidenced by respondentís posttraumatic stress disorder stemming from the incident.† And the court found that respondent is now in a supportive relationship, is going to AA meetings, and has support from family friends and her sponsor.† We conclude all of these factors support the district courtís finding of amenability to probation.

Further, the record indicates respondent is now confined to a wheelchair and her sponsor drives her to the AA meetings.† Thus, she is presently not a danger to society, based on the threat of her drinking and driving.† Moreover, appellant has an incentive not to violate her probation because her physical disabilities make living in jail very painful and difficult.

†Finally, respondentís sentence followed the recommendation in her presentence investigation report that she be granted a dispositional departure and a stayed sentence with ten years of supervised probation.† On these facts, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion.†

††††††††††† Affirmed.