Cited by

(applying Blakely in Minnesota); (noting that “[c]onsistent with Blakely, Minn. Sent.

When a district court imposes an upward sentencing departure, it must provide “(1) a factual finding that there exists one or more circumstances not reflected in the guilty verdict or guilty plea, and (2) an explanation by the district court as to why those circumstances create a substantial and compelling reason to impose a sentence outside the range on the grid.”

Specifically, “a district court must submit to a jury the question of whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of additional facts, which were neither admitted by the defendant, nor necessary to prove the elements of the offense, but which support reasons for departure.”

To order an upward durational departure, there must be “(1) a factual finding that there exists one or more circumstances not reflected in the guilty verdict or guilty plea, and (2) an explanation by the district court as to why those circumstances create a substantial and compelling reason to impose a sentence outside the range on the grid.” State v. Rourke, 6

onsistently held that, for the purposes of Blakely, “the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant” is “the presumptive sentence prescribed by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); d 913, 919 (Minn. 2009) (“For most felony offenses, the maximum sentence authorized by a guilty plea or guilty verdict is the top of the presumptive sentencing range provided in the

“[P]articular cruelty involves the gratuitous infliction of pain and cruelty of a kind not usually associated with the commission of the offense in question.” (quotations omitted).

“The ability of the State to appeal is limited.”

Minnesota Supreme Court “precedent recognizes that an aggravating factor may explain ‘why the facts of the case provide the district court a substantial and compelling basis for imposition of a sentence outside the range on the [sentencing- guidelines] grid.’” Vanengen, d at 582 ( (explaining that an “aggravating factor is a reason explaining why the facts of the case provide the district court a substantial and compelling basis for imposition of a sentence outside the range on the grid” (emphas

One of those reasons is particular cruelty, meaning that a district court may depart upward if it determines that a defendant committed the crime in a “particularly cruel” manner, including “the gratuitous infliction of pain and cruelty of a kind not usually associated with the commission of the offense in question.” d 913, 922 (Minn. 2009) (quotation omitted); Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.b(2) (2020).

To impose an upward sentencing departure, there must be “(1) a factual finding that there exists one or more circumstances not reflected in the guilty verdict or guilty plea, and (2) an explanation by the district court as to why those circumstances create a substantial and compelling reason to impose a sentence outside the range on the grid.” State v. Rourke

d 913, 923 (Minn. 2009).

“There must be a statute or court rule that permits the appeal, or the issue must arise by necessary implication from an issue where the State’s right to appeal is expressly provided.” (quotation omitted).

Thus, there are two requirements for imposing an upward durational departure: “(1) a factual finding that there exist one or more circumstances not reflected in the guilty verdict or guilty plea, and (2) an explanation by the district court as to why those circumstances create a substantial and compelling reason to impose a sentence outside the range on the grid.”

(stating that, generally, “the maximum sentence authorized by a guilty plea .

The supreme court has also held that “the particular cruelty aggravating factor is a reason explaining why the facts of the case provide the district court a substantial and compelling basis for imposition of a [sentencing departure].” -21 (Minn. 2009).

Our precedent recognizes that an aggravating factor may explain “why the facts of the case provide the district court a substantial and compelling basis for imposition of a sentence outside the range on the grid.”

An appellate court may identify a typical case by rel ying on its “collective experience” in reviewing numerous criminal appeals, see, or by making comparisons to similar cases, see

breathe when Mr. Floyd had already made it clear he was having trouble breathing”; (3) “Mr. Floyd was begging for his life [during the restraint] and obviously terrified10 by the knowledge that he was likely to die,” but Chauvin “remained indifferent to Mr. Floyd’s pleas”; (4) Chauvin failed to render aid11 to Floyd “after one of his fellow officers announced [that] 9 See State v. Rourke , (recognizing that particular cruelty can be found when defendant inflicts gratuitous pain on victim).

P. 28.04, subd s. 1–2; State v. Zais , –36 (Minn. 2011); (“We strictly construe the rules governing appeals by the State in criminal cases because such appeals are not favored.”).

provide the district court a substantial and compelling reason to impose a sentence outside the range on the grid.”

Particular cruelty “involves the gratuitous infliction of pain and cruelty of a kind not usually associated with the commission of the offense in question.” (quotations omitted).

guilty verdict is the top of the presumptive se ntencing range provided in the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines’ grid,” which is determined based on an offender’s crimin al-history score and th e convicted offense’s severity.

which support reasons for departure.” State v. Rourke , 1 (Minn. 2009) ; see also 15 Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301, 303-04, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 2536 (2005) (holding that accused is entitled to a jury trial on additional facts supporting departure).

The district court must explain why the jury’s addition al findings of fact “create a substantial and compelling reason to impose a sentence outside the range on the grid.” State v. Rourke

For the state to seek an aggravated sentence, it must provide notice to the defendant.2 (“[T]he State must notify the defense of anticipated upward -departure grounds before trial, and the applicability of the noticed grounds is an issue the district court is to resolve at the omnibus stage of the case.”).

(explaining that there are “two distinct requirements” for an upward “sentencing departure: (1) a factual finding that there exist one or more circumstances not reflected in the guilty verdict or guilty plea, and (2) an explanation by the district court as to why those circumstances create a su

provide the district court a substantial and compelling reason to impose a sentence outside the range on the grid.”

whic h support reasons for departure.” State v. Rourke

which support reasons for departure.” State v. Rourke

Particular cruelty “involves the gratuitous infliction of pain and cruelty of a kind not usually associated with the commission of the offense in question.” State v. Rourke , (quotations omitted).