Cited by

“The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines were created to assure uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing.” d 767, 770 (Minn. App. 2008) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

The district court 7 rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

See, -75 (Minn. App. 2008), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

A district court’s opinions based on “facts introduced or events occurring in the course of current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3(b)(10) (2021).

We presume that the district court sets aside any “collateral knowledge and approach[es] cases with a neutral and objective disposition.” d 767, 775 (Minn. App. 2008), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

- 75 (Minn. App. 2008) (multiple forms of penetration) , rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

“O pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Nov.

State v. Adell , review denied (Minn. Nov.

But “[o]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of current proceedings, or 7 of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partia lity motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antago nism that would make fair judgment impossible.” State v. Adell , (Mi nn.

23, 2011); 775-76 (Minn. App. 2008) (stating that “multiple 1 See Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301, 303-04, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) (explaining that any fact, other than a prior conviction, that is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by t

6 (Minn. 2009) (stating that “[w]e have previously concluded that a double upward durational departure is appropriate on finding particular cruelty [to the victim] alone” and affirming 288-month sentence, a departure from presumptive 144-month sentence, for first-degree criminal sexual conduct based on factors of particular cruelty to victim and multiple forms of penetration); 775-76 (Minn. App. 2008) (stating that “multiple penetrations alone will generally justify a double .

Guidelines 2.D.3.b.(1) (2012) (listing as an aggravating factor the victim’s vulnerability due to reduced physical or mental capacity); (including defendant’s death threats to victim and her children as a proper aggravating sentencing factor); -75 (Minn. App. 2008) (including multiple forms of penetration as a proper aggravating factor for a first-degree criminal- sexual-conduct conviction under Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd.

And we have stated that “[t]he fact that a defendant has subjected a victim to multiple forms of penetration is a valid aggravating factor in first-degree criminal sexual conduct cases” because “multiple forms of penetration is not ‘typical’ of the offense charged.” –75 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Nov.

review denied (Minn. Nov.

Multiple Forms of Penetration “The fact that a defendant has subjected a victim to multiple forms of penetration is a valid aggravating factor in first-degree criminal sexual conduct cases.” *146 774 (Minn.App.2008), review denied (Minn. Nov.

(noting that pre-Blakely, if the reasons stated by the sentencing court were improper or inadequate, appellate courts independently examined the record to determine if sufficient evidence justified the departure; post -Blakely, appellate courts no longer independently examine the record), pet.