Cited by

“An offense is ‘necessarily included’ in a greater offense if it is impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser offense.”

-66 (Minn. 2006 ) (noting that Minn. Stat. § 609.04 applies when a defendant is charged with disseminating contraband and possessi ng the same contraband with the sole purpose of dissemination).

Thus, this court “will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there 3 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.”

(reversing conviction for first-degree sale and remanding for resentencing on lesser -included offense of fifth-degree possession of methamphet amine); see also State v. Berstch , (holding that possession of pornography can be an included offense of dissemination of pornography).

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 r esult is in the interest of fairness and uniformity.” (quotation and citation omitted).

We review 6 a district court’s denial of a sentencing departure for an abuse of discretion, and will reverse a presumptive sentence only in “rare” cases, (quotation omitted).

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

d at 31; (“Factors a court can consider when determining whether to grant such a stay include ‘the defendant’s .

In determining whether a crime is necessarily proved by proof of another crime, “a court examines the elements of the offense instead of the facts of the particular case.” (“In determining whether a lesser offense is a necessarily included offense, we look at the statutory definitions rather than the f acts in a particular case to determine if a lesser offense is necessarily included.”).

at 253; see also State v. Bertsch , (Minn .

But remorse is “just one of several ‘[f]actors a court can consider’ when determining whether the defendan t is particularly amenable to probation.” ().

“[W]e will not ordinar ily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would 4 justify departure.” State v. Bertsch , (M inn.

A defendant’s particular amen ability to probation is demonstrated by such factors as “‘the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.’” ( ; further referenced as the “Trog factors”).

We re view a district court’s refusal to grant a dispositional departure from the sentencing guidelines for an abuse of discretion, and we w ill affirm the imposition of a sentence “when the record show s that the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” State v. Johnson , review denied (Minn. Sept.

State v. Bertsch , , 666 (Minn. 2006).

“To determine whether an offense is an included offense falling under [section 609.04], a court examines the elements of the offense.”

“[W]e will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive se ntence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.” (quotation and alteration omitted).

” State v. Bertsch , , 664 (Minn. 2006).

We review a district court’s refusal to grant a departure from the sentencing guidelines for an abuse of discretion, (M inn.

d 660, 664 (Minn. 2006).

Appellate courts “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.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

“ An offense is ‘necessarily included’ in a greater offense if it is impossible to commi t the greater offense without committing the lesser offense.”

“An offense is necessarily included in a greater offense if it is impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser offense.” (quotation omitted).

Accordingly, a defendant “may not be convicted of both the crime charged and ‘[a] crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved.’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 609.04, subd.

“An offense is ‘necessarily included’ in a greater offense if it is impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser offense.”

1 (2014) (proscribing convictions of both charged crime and lesser-included offense); (analyzing elements of two offenses to determine whether lesser-included offense is “necessarily included in greater offense”); compare Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd.