Cited by

District courts have broad discretion to determine whether a departure from the sentencing guidelines is appropriate, and appellate courts “generally will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion.” State v. Kindem

ict court’s decisions not to impose downward dispositional departures.4 We review a district court’s decision not to impose a downward dispositional departure for a clear abuse of that discretion and “[o]nly in a ‘rare’ case will a reviewing court reverse a district court’s imposition of [a guideline] sentence.” ( (other quotation omitted) ).

It is “a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”

The supreme court has 5 emphasized that “it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”

And we will reverse a district court’s refusal to depart only in a “rare case.”

“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 4 2.D.1.

(noting that only in a “rare case” will a reviewing court overturn a presumptive sentence).

“Only in a ‘rare case’ will a reviewing court reverse imposition of a presumptive sentence.” (), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).

“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”

State v. Kindem , (noting that only in a “rare case” will a reviewing court overturn a presumptive sentence) .

Delk, d at 428 (d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981)).

We review a district court’s decision not to depart from the sentencing guidelines for an abuse of discretion, reversing only in the “rare case.”

(noting that only in a “rare case” will a reviewing court overturn a presumptive sentence).

“Only the rare case will merit reversal based on the district court’s refusal to depart.” (), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

We “will reverse the district court’s refusal to depart from a presumptive sentence only in a ‘rare’ case.” (), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.