Cited by

Compare Taylor, N.W.2d at 589-90

“A sentencing court must pronounce a sentence within the applicable range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and 16 compelling circumstances that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , (quotation omitted).

-08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2022)

The requirement of particular amenability ensures that “the defendant’s amenability to probation distinguishes the defendant from most others and truly presents the substantial and compelling circumstances that are necessary to justify a departure.” (quotation omitted).

DECISION The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a sentence or a range of sentences that is “presumed to be appropriate.” (quoting Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1.A (2012)).

within the applicable [presumptive] range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (Supp. 2023)

But given the significant points of comparison to this case and the purpose of the sentencing guidelines to provide a system of statewide uniform sentencing, the district court should have also recognized that assigning Holmgren a severity level of eight is inconsistent with the Kenard court’s abuse-of-discretion conclusion in that case.

The sentencing guidelines prescribe a sentence that is “presumed to be appropriate.”

We will “afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

5 Appellate courts “afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” –08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation and footnote omitted).

The requirement of particular amenability ensures that “the defendant ’s amenability to 8 probation distinguishes the defendant from most others and truly presents the substantial and compelling circumstances that are necessary to justify a departure.” (quotation omitted ).

If a defendant requests a downward departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances 5 provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (alteration in original) ( and Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012)).

” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

District courts are “afford[ed] great discretion in the imposition of sentences” and appellate courts “reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts “afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts review a district court’s sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion and will reverse a district court’s sentencing decision only in a “rare case.” -08 (Minn. 2014).

“A sentencing court must pronounce a sentence within the applicable range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” d 303, 308 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

DECISION The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a sentence or range of sentences that is “presumed to be appropriate.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2022)

DECISION An appellate court “afford[s] the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse[s] sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014).

The sentencing guidelines prescribe a sentence or a range for the sentence that is “presumed to be appropriate.” (citation omitted).

Ryan asserts that the district court’s actions were improper because it changed Ryan’s sentence to “get around Minnesota’s jail credit law.” “We afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

Before departing from a guidelines sentence, a district court first must determine whether “‘aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (alteration in original) ( and Minn. Sent’ g Guidelines 2.D.1).

we ensure that the defendant’s amenability to probation distinguishes the defendant from most others and truly presents the substantial and compelling circumstances that are necessary to justify a departure.” (quotation omitted).

See Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a(7) (Supp. 2023); -09 (Minn. 2014).