Cited by

Circumstances are substantial and compelling when they show “that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.”

Appellate courts “review a decision by the district court ‘to depart from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.’” ().

Conversely, “[i]f the reasons given for an upward departure are legally permissible and factually supported in the record, the departure will be affirmed.”

Conversely, “[i]f the reasons given for an upward departure are legally permissible and factually supported in the record, the departure will be affirmed.”

The district court abuses its discretion when the “reasons for departure are improper or inadequate.” (quotation omitted).

“If the reasons given for an upward departure are legally permissible and factually supported in the record, the departure will be affirmed.” d 596, 601 (Minn. 2009).

But if the district court’s reasons for departure are improper or inadequate, the departure will be reversed.” (quotation omitted).

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

The supreme court has “repeatedly held that the risk to bystanders is an appropriate factor for courts to consider when determining the seriousness of a crime.”

Circumstances are substantial and compelling when they show “that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” (quotation omitted).

“If the reasons given for an upward departure are legally permissible and factually supported in the record, the departure will be affirmed.”

A “district court may not base an upward departure on facts necessary to prove elements of the offense being sentenced” or “on facts that, while not necessary to satisfy the elements of the offense in question, were nonetheless contemplated by the legislature when it set the punishment for the offense being sentenced.”

“If the reasons given for an upward departure a re legally permissible and factually supported in the record, the departure will be affirmed.”

Cf. State v. Edwards , (“[F]acts underlying an uncharged separate incident are an impermissible basis for departure because those facts do not show that the offense being sentenced was committed in a particularly serious way.”).

serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3 (2020) (providing nonexclusive list of departure factors).

8 reasons for departure are improper or inadequate, the departure will be reversed.” (quotation omitted).

But if the district court’s reasons for departure are improper or inadequate, the departure will be reversed.” (quotation omitted).

Circumstances are substantial and compelling when they are “significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” d 596, 601 (Minn. 2009).

But if the district court’s reasons for departure are improper or inadequate, the departure will be reversed.” (quotation omitted).

d 596, 601 (2009) (stating that we affirm an upward departure if “the reasons given for an 12 upward departure are legally permissible and factually supported in the record”); Minn. Sent.

d 596, 601 (Minn. 2009) (stating that “if the district court’s reasons for departure are improper or inadequate, the departure will be reversed” (quotation omitted)).

But if the district court’s reasons for departure are improper or inadequate, the departure will be reversed.” (quotation omitted).

” State v. Edwards , 5 (Minn. 2009) .

But Porte ignores that this rule is intended to recognize that “whe[n] multiple victims are involved, a defendant is equally culpable to each victim.”

But if the district court’s reasons for departure are improper or inadequate, the departure will be reversed.” (quotation omitted).

“If the reasons given for an 12 upward departure are legally permissible and factually supported in the record, the departure will be affirmed.”

It cannot be based on factors already accounted for as elements of the current offense, -30 (Minn. 2006), or “unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct,”

But “if the reasons given for an upward departure are legally permissible and factually supported in the record, the departure will be affirmed.”

4 defendant ’s conduct);3 see also State v. Edwards , (“[W]here multiple victims are harmed by a defendant’s conduct during a single behavioral incident, that defendant is more culpable than if he had harmed only one victim.”); State ex rel.

See State v. 15 Edwards, 607 (Minn. 2009) (upholding upward departure where defendant fired seven times at or towards a group of nine people); (upholding upward departure because murder was “not just an unintentional killing resulting from a single blow but was one resulting from multi

24, 1987); 607 (Minn. 2009) (upholding upward departure where defendant fired seven times at or toward a group of nine people); -57, 460-61 (Minn. 1985) (upholding upward departure where victim was maced, her throat was cut ear-to-ear, and she was stabbed 17 times); State v. Kisch

(stating a sentencing departure is justified if the district court articulates that “the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than typically involved in the commission of the offense”).