Cited by

“Substantial and compelling 5 circumstances are those demonstrating that the defendant’ s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotation omitted).

A durational departure is appropriate only if “the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the 7 crime in question.” -57 (Minn. 2015) (quotations omitted).

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those showing that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” Edwards, d at 601 (quotation omitted)

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotation omitted).

was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotations omitted).

“Substantial and compelling 9 circumstances are those demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotations omitted).

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct in the offens e of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” d 153, 157 (Minn. 2015) (quotations omitted).

“We review a district court’s decision to depart from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.”

The sentencing guidelines provide “ a nonexclusive lis t of factors t hat may be used as reasons for departure.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3 ( Supp. 2021).

The sentencing guidelines provide “ a nonexclusive list of factors t hat may be used as reasons for departure.” (quotation omitted) .

the departure sentencing jurisprudence from cases involving adult prosecution, which allows departures from a presumptive sentence so long as the court can show that “[s]ubstantial and compelling” circumstances exist that demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct “was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was signi ficantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” d 153, 157 (Minn. 2015) (quotations omitted).

aff’d, d 153, 163 (Minn. 2015).

State v. Hicks , , aff’d, see also Cleary, d at 904.

serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotation omitted).

But if the district court’s reasons for departure are improper or inadequate, the departure will be reversed.” (quotation omitted).

The imposition of an upward durational departure will be affirmed so long as the district court’s reasons for departing are “legally permissible and factually supported in the record.” (quotation omitted).

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those d emonstrating that the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” State v. Hicks , (quotation omitted).

The sentencing guidelines provide “a nonexclusive list of factors that may be used as reasons for departure.” State v. Hicks , (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Sent.

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that the defendant’s 4 conduct in the offense of conviction was signi ficantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” d 153, 157 (Minn. 2015) (quotations omitted).

The sentencing 9 guidelines provide “a nonexclusive list of factors that may be used as reasons for departure.” State v. Hicks , (quoting Minn. Sent.

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” State v. Hicks , (quotations omitted).

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

The sentencing guidelines provide “ a nonexclusive list of factors t hat may be used as reasons for departure.” (quotation omitted).

Hicks , the supreme court said, “The offender’s conduct in concealing the victim’s body is more serious than the typical second -degree unintentional murder because family and friends of a victim suffer additional trauma by not knowing whether their relative or friend is dead or alive, and concealment is contrary to the proper respectful treatment due to the remains of a deceased person.”

” State v. Hicks , (quotations omitted).

The imposition of an upward durational departure will be affirmed so long as the district court’s reasons for departing are “legally permissible and factually supported in the record.” (quotation omitted).

The sentencing guidelines provide “ a nonexclusive list of factors that may be used as reasons for departure.” (quotation omitted) .

See, e.g., State v. Solberg , ; State v. Hicks , .

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct in the offense of co nviction was signifi cantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” d 153, 157 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrati ng that the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” d 153, 157 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

ng of courtroom doors during jury instructions was not true closure); Lindsey, d at 660-61 (concluding that removal of two minor children was not true closure); -62 (Minn. App. 2013) (concluding that closures for administrative proceedings typically conducted in chambers but conducted in courtroom for pro se defendant were not true closures), aff’d

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” State v. Hicks , (quotation omitted).

“We review a district court’s decision to depart from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.”