Cited by

d 662, 664-65 (Minn. App. 2009).

(“Only in a rare case will a reviewing court reverse a district court’s imposition of the presumptive sentence.” (quotation omitted)).

However, a district court is not required to depart “from a 5 presumptively executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation.” Jesmer argues that the district court abused its discretion by determining that there were no substantial or compelling reasons to support a downward dispositional departure.

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” ().

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.”

-65 (Minn. App. 2009) (noting that “the district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so”).

d 662, 664-65 (Minn. App. 2009).

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” State v. Olson , (quotation omitted).

We review a district court’s decision to impose a presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion and will reverse that decision “[o]nly in a ‘rare’ case.” ().

But “a defendant is not entitled to a reduction in his sentence merely because [his] co-defendant[s] received a lesser sentence.”

We review a district court’s decision to impose a presumptive sentence for an abuse of discretion and will reverse that decision “[o]nly in a ‘rare’ case.” ().

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” ().

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” (quotation omitted).

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” (quotation omitted).

We review a district court’s decision to impose a presumptive sentence for a clear abuse of discretion and will reverse that decision “[o]nly in a ‘rare’ case.” ().

State v. 9 Olson, -65 (Minn. App. 2009).

We review a district court’s decision to impose a presumptive sentence for a clear abuse of discretion and will reverse that decision “[o] nly in a ‘rare’ case.” (quoting State v. Kindem , ).

pleaded guilty.7 Although Doan-Hanson is not entitled to a reduced sentence merely because his co-defendant received a lesser sentence, we find his argument convincing, particularly in comparison to other similar offenders.

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.”

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” (quotation omitted).

d 662, 664-65 (Minn. App. 2009).

DECISION Steffano challenges the district court’s decisions not to impose downward dispositional departures.4 We review a district court’s decision not to impose a downward dispositional departure for a clear abuse of that discretion and “[o]nly in a ‘rare’ case will a reviewing court reverse a district court’s imposition of [a guideline] sentence.” ( (other quotation omitted) ).

A district court has the discretion to grant a downward dispositional departure if the defendant is “particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.” -65 (Minn. App. 2009).

“ Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” State 12 v. Olson, (quotation omitted).

d 662, 664-65 (Minn. App. 2009).

(holding that “even if there [was] evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation[,]” the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to depart from the presumptive sentence).

d 662, 664 (Minn. App. 2009).

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a(7) (Supp. 2015); -65 (Minn. App. 2009).