Cited by

Appellate courts review a district court’s decision to deny a motion for dispositional departure for an abuse of discretion, reversing only in the “rare case.”

However, “the protections of section 609.04 will not apply if the offenses constitute separate criminal acts.” The legislature has not amended the language of section 609.04 following Bradley or any of the other cases cited in this section.

But appellate courts “will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts assess whether an offense is an included offense under section 609.04, subdivision 1(4), by examining whether “it is impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser offense.”

“This court reviews a district court’s severity level determination using an abuse of discretion standard.” (citation omitted).

See Pegel, d at 255 (stating that we will not reverse a departure denial if the district court considered the relevant information); see also State v. Bertsch , (“[W]e will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range .

Appellate courts “will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.” (quotation omitted); (“Only in a rare case will a reviewing court reverse the imposition of a presumptive sentence.”).

d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006) (“A defendant’s particular amenability to probation justifies a district court’s decision to stay the execution of a presumptively executed sentence.”); see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a(7) (2022).

(“Appellate courts may vacate or modify a sentence on many grounds, including that the sentence is unreasonable or inappropriate.”).

In determining whether one offense is “necessarily proved” by the other, or “necessarily included” in the other, we examine “the elements of the offense instead of the facts of the particular case.” see also Degroot, d at 364 (“In determining whether one offense is necessarily included in the other, we compare the statutory elements of the two offenses.” (quotation omitted)).

But appellate courts “will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that we will rarely disturb a district court’s decision to impose a sentence within the presumptive guidelines range), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).

We review a district court’s decision to deny a motion for dispositional departure for abuse of discretion, again reversing only in the “rare case.”

(“A defendant’s particular 6 amenability to probation justifies a district court’s decision to stay the execution of a presumptively executed sentence.”); see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a(7) (2022).

“The inquiry into whether two offenses are separate criminal acts is analogous to an inquiry into whether multiple offenses constituted a single behavioral incident under Minn. Stat. § 609.035.”

And a crime is necessarily proved “if it is impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser offense.”

18 dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.” (quotation omitted).

And a crime is necessarily proved “if it is impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser offense.”

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a(7) (2022)

(providing that courts “examine[] the elements of the offense instead of the facts of the particular case” to determine whether a defendant was impermissibly convicted of a lesser- included offense), with Johnson, d at 522 (“[A]ny test for applying [section 609.035] was clearly intended

(stating that this court will rarely disturb a district court’s decision to impose a sentence within the presumptive guidelines range), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).

“Appellate courts may vacate or modify a sentence on many grounds, including that the sentence is unreasonable or inappropriate.”

(holding that possession of pornography can be an included offense of dissemination of pornography); WL 2167713, at *2 –3 (Minn. App. May 20, 2019) (nonprecedential but persuasive opinion reversing a conviction of first- degree possession of a control

Appellate courts are reluctant to “interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.” (quotation omitted).

In determining whether an offense is an “included offense” under section 609.04, courts examine “the elements of the 17 offense instead of the facts of the particular case.”

A crime is necessarily proved “if it is impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser offense.”

even if there are grounds that would justify departure.” (quotation omitted).

“A defendant’s particular amenability to probation justifies a district court’s decision to stay the execution of a presumptively executed sentence.”

And we “will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.” (quotation omitted).

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a(7) (2022)

(recognizing that, even if grounds for departure exist, a guidelines sentence is presumed to be appropriate and will not ordinarily be disturbed).

(“At his plea hearing on June 13, 2008, Jeffries was arraigned, entered a guilty plea, presented his written plea petition, placed the required waivers on the record, and testified to the factual basis for the plea.”); (“On August 11, 2003, Bertsch pleaded guilty to all charges and the district court accepted his plea.”).

Appellate courts “will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.” (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).