Cited by

State v. Arola Johnson, 7

“Multiple current felony convictions for crimes against persons may be sentenced consecutively to each other, without constituting a departure from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, only when the presumptive disposition is commitment to the Commissioner of Corrections.”

see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.F (2022).

see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.F (2022) (“Generally, when an offender is convicted of multiple current offenses .

.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 1.B.3 (Supp. 2021); -79 (Minn. App. 2005).

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D (2020) (requiring substantial and compelling reasons for a departure); (requiring a district court to state its reasons for an upward departure on the record, and holding that absent such a record, no upward departure will be allowed); (requiring a district court to identify its departure reasons on the record).

does not create such circumstances in its own right.” -80 (Minn. App. 2005).

Our court has held this to mean that “[p]ermissive consecutive sentencing is available under this exception only when the presumptive disposition for the offenses is commitment to the commissioner of corrections.”

But the “threshold issue” of whether the consecutive sentences imposed were permissive under the sentencing guidelines “requires interpretation of the sentencing guidelines, which is a question of law subject to de novo review.” State v. Rannow , ().

for imposition of the presumptive guidelines sentence.”

Later, in State v. Rannow , this court explained that under Geller, “[I]f the district court does not state reasons for [a] departure at the time of sentencing, the departure is not allowed.”

But when the sentencing issue requires determinati on of whether imposition of a consecutive sentence was permissive or amounted to an upward sentencing de parture, the “issue requires interpretation of the sentencing guide lines, which is a question of law subject to de novo review.”

See State v. Rannow , (stating that when no reasons are given for departure, it is clear that the remand is for the presumptive sentence and not an opportunity to state reasons for departure).

- 79 & n.3 (Minn. App. 2005); -200 (Minn. App. 1986), review denied (Minn. Nov.

(citing Geller, d at 517).

is a question of law subject to de novo review.”

–79 & n.3 (Minn. App. 2005) (applying defendant’s criminal-history score to determine presumptive disposition of sentences and whether consecutive sentencing was permissive).

this court rejected a similar argument and held that under Getter, which was decided after Lewis , a remand was required, with instructions to the district court to impose a sentence that does not constitute a departure from the guidelines.

-81 (Minn.App.2005); -49 (Minn.App.2005).