Cited by

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction 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 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 7 omitted).

If the district 4 court’s reasons for a departure “are legally permissible and fa ctually supported in the record, the departure will be affirmed.” (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) (quotati on omitted).

“Substantial and compelling circumstances a re those demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was signifi cantly 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 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 s omitted).

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

State v. Hicks , , 156 (Minn. 2015) (quotations omitted).

But if the district court’s reasons for departure are improper or inadequate, the departure will be reversed.” d 153, 156 (Minn. 2015) (quotations and citations omitted).

(concluding that a single mitigating factor may support downward sentencing departure); (holding that a single aggrava ting factor may support upward sentencing departure).

4 “The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines promote uniformity, proportionality, and predictability in sentencing.” see also Minn. Sent.

“If the reasons given for an upward departure are legally permissible and factually supported in the record, the departure will be affirmed.”

“If the reasons given for an upward departure are legally permissible and factually supported in the record, the departure will be affirmed.”

But when departing from the sentencing guidelines, a district court “must articulate substantial and compelling circumstances justifying the departure.” (quotation omitted).

” State v. Hicks , (quoting Minn. Sent.

This court reviews “a district court’s decision to depart from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Hicks

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

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

“Whether a judge viol ated the code of judicial conduct is a question of law, which we review de novo.” aff’d on other grounds

“Generally, the district court may impose an upward durational sentencing departure if the evidence shows that the defendant committed the offense in a particularly serious way.”

Aggravated Sentence This court reviews “a district court’s decision to depart from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.”

“The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines promote uniformity, proportionality, and predictability in sentencing.”

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

See, (holding that concealment of a homicide victim’s body, by itself, may support an upward durational departure); (holding that the repeat-offender aggravating factor, by itself, may support up to a double upward durational departure).

“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.” d 153, 157 (Minn. 2015) (quotations omitted).

U.S. v. Norris, 780 F.2d 1207, 1209-11 (5th Cir.1986); aff'd on other grounds