Cited by

4 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.” State v. Jackson , n.2 (Minn. 2008) .

“All three 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).

State v. Jackson , review denied (Minn. May 11, 2010) (observing that a de novo standard of review applies “when reviewing whether a particular reason for an upward departure is permissible”).5 Wang Navas raises two challenges to the validity of the

Barthman requests that we “limit any departure to twice the ‘presumptive sentence’ ” instead of “twice the upper end of the presumptive sentence range.” we declined to revisit the Evans rule in the wake of changes to the sentencing guidelines.

“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. Jackson , n.2 (Minn. 2008).

State v. Jackson , d 353, 357 (Minn. 2008).

Minnesota law is clear that “a ny sentence within the presumptive range for the convicted offense constitutes a presumptive sentence.” review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010) ; d 353, 359 n.2 (Minn. 2008) (noting that each cell i n the sentencing grid contains three numbers and “[a]ll three numbers in any given cell constitute an a cceptable sentence”).

n.2 (Minn. 2008) (“All three numbers in any given cel l constitute an acceptable sentence .

See Soto, d at 308 n.1; review denied (Minn. Aug.

at 670 (emphasis added); (“Burglary is a serious crime, and punishment is allowed for both the burglary and the crime committed in the dwelling.”) (Emphasis added).

State v. Jackson , , 360 (Minn. 2008).

State v. Jackson , (quotation omitted).

Guidelines 2.D.1 (2013 ); see State v. Jackson , n .2 (Minn. 2008) .

2(b) (2016), or if “modification is in the interest of fairness and uniformity,” (quotations omitted).

“All three numbers in any given cell [of the sentencing- guidelines grid] constitute an acceptable sentence.” n.2 (Minn. 2008).

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

Even in the presence of aggravating or mitigating factors, “the court may exercise discretion to depart but is not required to depart,” , because “departures are justified only in exceptional cases.”

5a(b), establishes that the Legislature enacted the statute as a

Guidelines 4 (2014); n.2 (Minn. 2008).

n.2 (Minn. 2008) (noting that under the sentencing guidelines presumptive sentences are determined using a grid system, that each cell on the grid contains three numbers, and that “[a]ll three numbers in any given cell constitute an acceptable sentence”).

See, (“The phrase ‘any other crime’ means a crime that requires proof of different statutory elements than the crime of burglary.” (quoting section 609.585)); (“Burglary is a serious crime, and punishment is allowed for both the burglary and the crime committed in 8 the dwelling.” (citing section 609.585)); (stating that section 609.585 “contains an exce

(stating that if mitigating factors are shown, the district court may, but is not required to, depart).