Cited by

644- 45 (Minn. 1984), the offender’s minor or passive role in the crime, Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a(2) (2022), or a victim acting as the first aggressor, Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a(1) (2022).7 None 6 While this practice is not appropriate for an upward departure given an offender’s constitutional right to a jury trial on the existence of aggravating factors, (citing Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) ), it is permissible for a downward departure, see Rund, d at 534-35.

unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (Supp. 2021)

The presumptive sentence is “presumed to be appropriate for all typical cases sharing 8 criminal history and offense severity characteristics.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 1.B.13 (2016)

(“Among the boundaries identified for proper departure is that the reasons used for departing must not themselves be elements of the underlying crime.” (quotation omitted)).

within the applicable [presumptive range], unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020); see also State v. Jones

Generally, to depart from the presumptive guidelines range, the offense must involve “substantial and compelling circumstances.” 5 (Minn. 2008).

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines exist “to assure uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing.” (quotation omitted).

-48, 851 (Minn. 2008) (citing Blakely v. Washington, 524 U.S. 296, 303 (2004)).

851 (Minn. 2008) (citing Blakely, 524 U.S. at 303).

851 (Minn. 2008) (citing Blakely, 524 U.S. at 303).

But the reasons for a departure “must not themselves be elements of the underlying crime.” (quotation omitted).

“Departures are warranted only when substantial an d compelling circumstances are present,” which are circumstances “demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Sent.

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that ‘the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.’ ” ().

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” State v. Jones , (quotation omitted).

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in 8 the commission of the crime in question.” State v. Jones , (quotation omitted).

Likewise, in State v. Jones, the supreme court held that Jones was entitled to a jury dete rmination of the facts that would justify an enhanced sentence, and therefore reversed the enhanced sentence and remanded for sentencing where “the district court may impose the presumptive guidelines sentence or, unless waived by Jones, empanel a resentencing jury.”

(stating that departures cannot be based on uncharged or dismissed offenses or on offenses of which the defendant was acquitted).

was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commis sion of the crime in question.” (quotation omitted).

less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.’” ().

State v. Jones , , 848 (Minn. 2008) ; Minn. Sent.

See State v. Jones , (stating that conduct underlying one conviction cannot be relied on to su pport upward departure for separate conviction); but see State v. Fleming , (concluding that, under Minn. Stat. § 244.10, subd.

State v. Jones , , 848 (Minn. 2008).

Generally, in order to depart from the presumptive guidelines range, the offense must involve “substantial and compelling circumstances.”

The purpose of the Minnesot a Sentencing Guidelines is to “assure uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing.” d 845, 848 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).

(explaining that when the district court’s reasons stated on the record for a departure are improper or inadequate, our past practice has been to independently review the record to determine whether sufficient evidence justifies a departure for legitimate reasons).

(stating that a defendant is entitled to a jury determination of facts relevant to an aggravated sentence).

(stating that a defendant has a right to fact-finding by a jury on aggravating factors that may support an upward departure).

1 “The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines were created to assure uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing.” (quotation omitted).

In making this determination, the district court must avoid “redundant enhancements.”

Application of the repeat offender aggravating factor when injury to the victim is an element of the current offense 4 We have also said that departures “cannot be based on uncharged or dismissed offenses.”

d 845, 849 (Minn. 2008).

In conclusion, we observe that “[t]he power to fix the limits of punishment for criminal acts lies with the legislature.” (recognizing that the 15 legislature has created statutory exceptions that authorize cumulative punishment for certain crimes that “reflect legislative determinations concerning specific conduct that is eligible for increased punishment even when commi

(stating that post-Blakely, absent a waiver by a defendant, the fact-finder must determine facts that would justify an upward departure).