Cited by

The mere presence of a mitigating factor i n a case “does not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).

.” State v. Pegel , (Mi nn.

” State v. Pegel , -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).

4 obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).

does not obligate the court to place defendant on probation.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).

If “the record demonstrates that an exercise of discretion has not occurred, the case must be remanded for a hearing on sentencing and for consideration of the departure issue.”

See State v. Pegel , , 254 (Minn. App. 2011).

d 251, 255 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).

But “the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does not obligate the court to place defendant on probation.” (quotation omitted).

Finally, “the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does not obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter ter m than the presumptive term.” –54 (Minn. App. 2011) (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.”); see also State v. Pegel , -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (determining that a district court need not depart in every case where a mitigating factor is present).

.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).

- 54 (Minn. App. 2011) ().

We will not interfere with the district court’s exercise of discretion, “as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and info rmation presented before making a determination.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).

“But the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does not ob ligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” –54 (Minn. App. 2011) ( quotation omitted).

(quotation omitted); (“An appellate court will not generally review the [district] court’s exercise of its discretion in cases where the sentence imposed is within the presumptive range.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (M

does not obligate the court to place defendant on probation.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).

State v. Pegel , d 251, 255 (Minn. App. 2011).

But “the mere fact that a mitigating factor i s present in a particular case does not obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” –54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted); see also Kindem, d at 7 (“[T]he Guidelines state that when substantial and compelling circumstances are present, the judge may depart.

does not obligate the court to place defendant on 5 probation.” State v. Pegel , -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).

State v. Pegel , -54 (Minn. App. 2011).

5 Further, even if the record did support a finding that Anderson 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 defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.’” State v. Pegel , -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quoting State v. Wall , ); see also State v. Olson , -65 (Minn. App. 20 09) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defe

d 251, 253-54 (Minn. App. 2011) ().

A district court abuses its discretion when it does not “deliberately consider[] circumstances for and against departure.” (quotation omitted).

A district court may abuse its discretion when it does not “deliberately consider[] circumstances for and against departure,” or when a sentence is “inconsistent with statutory requirements, unreasonable, 8 inappropriate, excessive, unjustifiably disparate, or not warranted by the findings of fact issued by the district court.” Minn. Stat. § 244.11, subd.

(internal quotation omitted).

- 54 (Minn. App. 2011) ().

Other provisions of the DSRA went into effect in May 2016, but those provisions had to do with sentencing guideline ranges and not the classification of offenses.

To avoid abusing its discretion in departing from a presumptive sentence, the district court “must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” State v. Pegel , (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).

A district court may abuse its discretion when it does not “deliberately consider[] circumstances for and against departure,” or when a sentence is “inconsistent with statutory requirements, unreasonable, inappropriate, excessive, unjustifiably disparate, or not warranted by the findings of fact issued by the district court,” Minn. Stat. § 244.11, subd.

Even if the record di d support a finding that appellant 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 de fendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.’” -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (); -65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defe ndant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to d

“If the district court has discretion to depart from a presumptive se ntence, it must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstan ces for and against departure.” State v. Pegel

d 251, 255 (Minn. App. 2011).

(“[T]he Guidelines state that when substantial and compelling circumstances are prese nt, the judge ‘may’ depart.”); -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (noting that a district court must consider the circumstances of a case when deciding whether to depart, but that the presence of mitigating factors does not obligate a departure) ().

If one or more mitigating factors is shown, “[w]hether to depart [downward] from the sentencing guidelin es rests within the district court’s discretion, and the district court will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Pegel , –54 (M inn.

We will not interfere with a district court’s decision to impose th e presumptive guidelines sentence “as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).

If one or more mitigating factor s is shown, “[w]hether to depart [downward] from the sentencing guidelines rests within the district court’s discretion, and the district court will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” – 54 (Minn. App. 2011) ().

-54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).