Cited by

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 om itted).

State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014).

3 A dis trict court may grant a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is “particularly amenable to probation.”

The Minne sota Sentencing Guidelines “prescribe[e] a sentence or range of sentences that is presumed to be appropriate.” (quotation omitted).

D E C I S I O N The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe “a sentence or range of sentences that is ‘presumed to be appropriate.’” State v. Soto , (quoting Minn. Sent.

“We ‘afford the [district] cour t great discretion in the impos ition of sentences’ and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) ().

“Consequently, departures from the guidelines are discouraged and are intended to apply to a small number of cases,” id., that “overcome the presumption in 4 favor of the guidelines se ntence.” State v. Soto , (quotation omitted).

A district court may grant a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is “particularly amenable to probation.” State v. Soto , (Minn .

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a range of sentences , and the “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.” State v. Soto , (quotation omitted); see Minn. Sent.

A district court “can exercise its discretion [in sentencing] to depart from the guidelines only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , (quotations omitted); see Minn. Sent.

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

State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted) .

–08 (Minn. 2014) (footnote and quotation omitted).

But remorse is “just one of several ‘[f]actors a court can consider’ when determining whether the defendan t is particularly amenable to probation.” ().

D E C I S I O N 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) ().

This standard, “while deferential, is not a limitless grant of power to the [district] court.” (quotation omitted).

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines pr escribe a sentence or a range for the sentence that is “presumed to be appropriate.” (quoting Minn. Sent.

“We ‘afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences’ and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quoting State v. Spain , ).

“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.” State v. Soto , (quoting Minn. Sent.

A district court may depart from a presumptive sentence only when “identifiable, substantial, 3 and compelling circumstances [exist] that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , (quotation omitted).

State v. Soto , , 307-08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

Guidelines 2.D.1; see State v. Soto , , 308 (Minn. 2014).

Guidelines 2.D.1; d 303, 308 (Minn. 2014).

“was [Soto’s] for the rest of the night.”

26, 2009); n.1 (Minn. 2014).

A district court may depart from the presumed sentence only when there “exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Sent.

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

“We afford the trial court great discreti on in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (internal quotation omitted).

A downward durational or dispositional departure is permitted when there “exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” (quotation omitted).

“We ‘afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences’ and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quoting State v. Spain , ).

“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) ().

7 Soto, –08 (Minn. 2014 ) (quotation omitted).

–08 (Minn. 2014) (quot ation omitted).