Cited by

“To determine the proper sentence to be imposed in any given case, a [district] court locates the cell on the grid that corresponds to the offense level and the offender’s criminal history.” n.2 (Minn. 2008).

5 (2014)); (“To maintain uniformity and proportionality, departures from the presumptive guidelines sentence are discouraged.”).

“[A]ny sentence within the presumptive range for the convicted offense constitutes a presumptive sentence.” rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2010); n.2 (Minn. 2008) (explaining that “[a]ll three numbers in any given cell constitute an acceptable sentence based solely on the offense at issue and the offender’s criminal history score”).

The full range of sentence durations in any box of the sentencing grid “constitute an acceptable sentence based solely on the offense at issue and the offender’s criminal history score—the lowest is not a downward departure, nor is the highest an upward departure.” n.2 (Minn. 2008).

5 (2014)); (“To maintain uniformity and proportionality, departures from the presumptive guidelines sentence are discouraged.”).

5 relevant sentencing criteria are the offense of conviction and the [defendant’s] criminal history.” (quotation omitted).

We generally “review a district court’s decision to depart from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.” –57 (Minn. 2008).

n.2 (Minn. 2008); Minn. Sent’g Guidelines IV.

A bottom- of-the-box sentence is “not a downward departure.” S n.2 (Minn. 2008).

n.2 (Minn. 2008) ( “All three numbers in any given cell [on the sentencing guidelines grid] constitute an acceptable sentence based solely on the offense at issue and the offender’s criminal history score—the lowest is not a downward departure, nor is the highest an upward departure.” ); State v. Delk, 781 N.W

See Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 4.A; n.2 (Minn. 2008).

See Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 4.A; n.2 (Minn. 2008).

As the Minnesota Supreme Court has explained, all three of those numbers (i.e., 261, 306, and 367), “constitute an acceptable sentence based solely on the offense at issue and the offender’s criminal history score—the lowest is not a downward departure, nor is the highest an upward departure.” n.2 (Minn. 2008).

n.2 (Minn. 2008) (stating that “the lowest is not a downward departure, nor is the highest an upward departure”).

“If a jury finds facts that support a departure from the presumptive sentence, the court may exercise discretion to depart but is not required to depart .” .

“[A]ny sentence within the presumptive range for [a] convicted o ffense constitutes a presumptive sentence.” Delk , 781 at 428; see also State v. Jackson , n.2 (Minn. 2008) (“All three numbers in any given cell [of the sentencing guidelines grid] constitute an acceptable sentence .”).

“All three numbers in any given cell [on the sentencing guidelines grid] constitute an acceptable sentence based solely on the offense at issue and the offender’s criminal history score—the lowest is not a downward departure, nor is the highest an upward departure.” n.2 (Minn. 2008).

“All three numbers in any given cell constitute an acceptable sentence based solely on the offense at issue and the offender’s criminal history score—the lowest is not a downward departure, nor is the highest an upward departure.” n.2 (Minn. 2008).

A departure from the sentencing guidelines will be reversed “[i]f the district court’s reasons for departure are improper or inadequate and there is insufficient evidence in the record to justify the departure.” (quotation omitted).

calls for resolving the legal question de novo.” Soto, d at 308 n.1; rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2010); rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

“All three numbers in any given cell [on the sentencing guidelines grid] constitute an acceptable senten ce based solely on the offense at issue and the offender’s criminal history score— the lowest is not a downward departure, nor is the highest an upward departure.” n.2 (Minn. 2008).

calls for resolving the legal question de novo.” Soto, d at 308 n.1; accord State v. Jackson , State v. Dentz , rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2010); rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

The presumptive sentence includes the so-called sentencing “box” or “range.” (“The presumptive sentence was 88 months, with a presumptive sentencing range of 75-105 months.”).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has noted that “ All th ree numbers in any given cell [on the sentencing guidelines grid] constitute an acceptable sentence based solely on the of fense at issue and the offender’s criminal history score—the lowest is not a downward departure, nor is the highest an upward departure.” n.2 (Minn. 2008).

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); State v. Pegel, 795

Guidelines 2.D.1 (2018); State v. Jackson , n.2 (Minn. 2008) (notin g that top -of-the-box sentence is not upward departure).

The supreme court has stated that “[a]ll three numbers in any given cell constitute an acceptable sentence based solely on the offense at issue and the offender’s criminal history score—the lowest is not a downward departure, nor is the highest an upward departure.” n.2 (Mi nn.

(observing that a de novo standard of review applies “when reviewing whether a particular reason for an upward departure is permissible”), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).

calls for resolving the legal question de novo.” Soto, d at 308 n.1; accord State v. Jackson , State v. Dentz , Dillon v. State , review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010); review denied (Minn. Aug.

calls for resolving the legal question de novo.” Soto, d at 308 n.1; accord State v. Jackson , State v. Dentz , review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010); State v. Grampre , review denied (Minn. Aug.

“Departures from the presumptive sentence are justified only when substantial and compelling circumstances are present in the record.”

“Departures from the presumptiv e sentence are justified only when substantial and compelling circumstances are present in the record.”

see also D illon v. State , 5 (Minn. App. 2010) (observing that a de novo standard of review applies “when reviewing whether a particular reason for an upward departure is permissible”) review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).