Cited by

serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” (quotation omitted).

serious than that typically involved in the commissio n of the offense in question.” State v. Edwards , (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Sent.

DECISION I. Upward Departure—Aggravating Factor A sentencing court may depart from the pr esumptive sentences set forth in the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines only if “substantial and compelling circumstances justify[] the departure.” (quotation omitted).

Because Minnesota caselaw di ctates that “[i]f the reasons given for an upward departure are legally permissible a nd factually supported in the record, the departure will be affirmed,” State v. Edwards , and because multiple forms of penetration is a legally permissible reason for an upward 6 departure, see Adell, d at 775-76 (stating that “multiple penetrations alone will generally justify a double .

The district court imposed a guidelines sentence, and consecutive senten ces when there are mu ltiple victims “are rarely, if ever, disproportionate.” Ali, d at 259; see also State v. Edwards , (“[W]here multiple victims ar e involved, a defendant is equally culpable to each vic tim.”).

serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” (M inn.

Because Crenshaw does not argue that the sentence is unlawful for this reason, we need not address respondent’s

d 596, 601 (Minn. 2009).

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

Substantial and compelling circumstances demonstrate “that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” State v. Edwards

serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.”

Guidelines 2.D.1 (2016); see also State v. Edwards

because where multiple victims are involved, a defendant is equally culpable to each victim.” d 596, 605 (Minn. 2009).

State v. Edwards , , 601 (Minn. 2009).

serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” 01 (Minn. 2009) (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Sent.

(quotation and citations omitted).

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

(“[T]he district court is not permitted to impose an upward departure if the sentence will unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct, or punish a defendant twice for the same conduct.”) ; see also State v. Thompson , (concluding that “double c

“This statute is intended to protect defendants from multiple punishment and to thereby ensure that punishment is commensurate with the defendant’s criminality.”

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

State v. Edwards, the supreme court rejected this argument based on Spaeth by clarifying that “Spaeth do[es] not prohibit the district court from using ‘overlapping’ facts to depart upward when a defendant is convicted of multiple offenses arising out of a single behavioral incident, if those facts show that the defendant committed the offense being sentenced in a particularly serious way.”

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 6 was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” (quotation omitted).