Cited by

See State v. Weaver , (concluding remand is unnecessary when district court relied on one invalid factor and did not make an express statement regarding the relative weight of each factor because the sentence was consistent with precedent, valid reasons independently supported the departure, and the district cour

In determining whether a defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than the typical offense, “it is proper for the sentencing court to consider the course of conduct underlying the charge for which the defendant is being sentenced.” rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

“The presence of a single aggravating factor is sufficient to uphold an upward departure.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

(“When interpreting the statutes, it is [appellate courts’] role to rely on what the Legislature intended over what may appear to be supported by public policy.”); (“Determination of what conduct constitutes a criminal offense and the punishment that ought to be imposed .

In determining whether a defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question, “it is proper for the sentencing court to consider the course of conduct underlying the charge for which the defendant is being sentenced.” rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

“[A] single aggravating factor is sufficient to uphold an upward departure.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

“The presence of a single aggravating factor is sufficient to uphold an upward departure.” rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

“We conduct a de novo assessment of the district court’s decision as to whether a valid departure ground exists, relying on the factual findings that support the decisions.”

rev. denied (Minn. July 19, 2011) .

When imposing a durational departure, a district court consider s “the course of conduct underlying the charge for which th e defendant is being sentenced.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

We determine whether the district court’s 22 reasons for departure “are legally permissible and factually supported by the record.” review denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).

-73 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Jul.

See State v.Weaver, (stating that general disagreement with the sentencing guidelines or the policy on wh ich they are based does not justify a departure).

“If a district court’s reasons for departure are stated on the record , an appellate court must determine whether the stated reasons justify the departure.” State v. Weaver

(“Unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances to warrant an upward departure, the district court must order the presumptive sentence provided by the guidelines.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Jul.

“[W]hen the district court’s stated departure reasons are improper or inadequate, an appellate court may independently examine the record to determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify departure, so long as the court does not engage in impermissible fact-finding.” -73 (Minn. App. 2011), review denied (Minn. Jul.

We review de novo “whether a valid departure ground exists, relying on the factual findings that support the decision,” and “whether the valid departure reasons are severe,” review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).

review denied (Minn. July 19, 2011).