Cited by

See State v. Bertsch , (stating that the defendant ’s plea is not intelligent “when the count to which he has pled is a moving target subject to later amendment by the state ”).

See State v. Bertsch , Minn. Sent.

A crime is included in a greater offense “if it is impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser offense.”

[and] whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (quotation omitted).

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) ().

[and] whether the segment of conduc t involved was motivat ed by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

To determine wh ether an offense is necessarily proved, we examine “the elements of the offense.” State v. Bertsch

See State v. Jackson , (stating that if a jury finds facts supporting a departure, a district court may, but is not required to, depart); (affirming denial of a request for departure despite defendant’ s argument that Trog factors were present); -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that the mere existence of mitigating factors does not require the district court to place a defendant on probation).

State v. Bertsch , Minn. Sent.

Dissemination and possession offenses “[P]ossession of a pornographic work invo lving a minor is an included offense of dissemination of such a work.”

[and] whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” d 660, 664 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).

But, “[a]ppellate courts may vacate or modify a sentence on many grounds, including that the sentence is unreasonable or inappropriate, or that such a result is in the interest of fairness and uniformity.” (citation and quotation omitted).

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

In determining whether an offense is an “included offense” for purposes of section 60 9.04, it is appropriate to examine “the elements of the offense instead of the facts of the particular case.”

“[W]e will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence ‘fall[ing] within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.’” State v. Bertsch , ().

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

1 (stating that before a judge accepts a guilty plea in a felony case, the defendant must be sworn and questioned regarding whether the defendant understands the precise offense to which he is pleading guilty); (stating that a “defendant can hardly be said to understand the consequences of his plea when the count to which he has pled is a moving target subject to later amendment by the state” (quotation omitted)); (stating that a plea must be intelligent t

See, (“The protec tions of section 609.04 will not apply if the offenses constitute separate criminal acts.”).

However, “the protections of section 609.04 will not apply if the offenses constitute separate criminal acts.”

But, “the protections of section 609.04 will not apply if the offenses constitute separate criminal acts.” (M inn.

See State v. Bertsch , (recognizing that appellate courts “will not ordinarily interfere with a [presumptive] sentence .

This court “may vacate or modify a sentence on many grounds, including that the sentence is unreasonable or inappropriate, or that such a result is in the interest of fairness and uniformity.” d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006) (citation omitted).

But “[a]ppellate courts may vacate or modify a sentence on many grounds, including that the sentence is unreasonable or inappropriate, or that such a result is in the interest of fairness and uniformity.” (quotation and citation omitted).