Cited by

d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981) (quotation omitted).

d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018) ().

applicable caselaw is the well-developed caselaw—consisting of opinions issued both before and after Cermak and Womack—that an appellate court “generally will not interfere with a sentencing court’s decision to impose a term within the presumptive sentence range.” Delk, 8 d at 428

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

“[T]he Guidelines state that when substantial and compelling circumstances are presen t, the judge ‘may’ depart.” State v. Kindem

The supreme court stated that— and other opinions expressing a gene ral reluctance to reverse a presumptive sentence—an appellate court may modify a presumptive sentence if a defendant, “because of his physical condition, is particularly unam enable to this form of incarceration at this time.” Id.

The supre me court has repeatedly stated that “we do not ‘intend entirely to close the door on appeals from refusals to depart.’” d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006) ().

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

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

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

We only rarely reverse the imposition of a guidelines sentence, and will not modify it “absent compelling circumstances,”

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

The district court has broad sentencing discretion, State v. Kindem, 3 but may not depart downward from the presumptive sentence designated by the sentencing guidelines absent substantial and compelling mitigating circumstances, Minn. Sent.

ce is 7 reviewed with the understanding that “[a district court] judge sits with a unique perspective on all stages of a case, including sentencing, a nd the [district court] judge is in the best position to evaluate the offender’s c onduct and weigh se ntencing options,” Hough, d at 397, and that the district court has “broad discretion” in sentencing decisions

We “generally will not interfere with sentences that are within the presumptive [guidelines] range,” State v. Freyer , and reverse imposition of 4 presumptive sentences only in “rare” cases, State v. Delk , (quoting State v. Kindem , ), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).