Cited by

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).

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

See State v. 10 Olson, –65 (Minn. App. 2009); see also Van Ruler, d at 80–81.

-65 (Minn. App. 2009) (concluding that “[i]t is within the district court’s broad discretion to reach [the] conclusion” that “the presumptive sentence was appropriate”).

“Whether to depart from the guidelines rests within the district court’s discretion, and this court will not reverse the decision absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” (quotation omitted)

Second, “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.” -65 (Minn. App. 2009).

T his court has repeatedly stated, however, that “a defendant is not entitled to a reduction in his sentence merely because a codefendant received a lesser sentence.” see also State v. 12 Krebsbach, rev. denied (Minn. Jan.

A distri ct court is not required to depart “from a presumptively executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation.”

“Whether to depart from the guidelines rests within the district court’s discretion, and this court will not reverse the decision absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Olson , (quotation omitted).

-65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he 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.”).

pport a finding that Valdez is particularly amenable to probation, “the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does ‘not obligate the court to place defend ant on probation or impose a shorter t erm than the presumptive term.’” -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (); -65 (Minn .

“Whether to depart from the guidelines rests within the district court’s discretion, and this court will not reverse the decision absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” State v. Olson, 3 (quotation omitted) .

“Whether to depart from the guidelines rests within the district court’s discretion, and this court will not reverse the decision absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” (quotation omitted) .