Cited by

This 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) (quotation omitted).

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

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 omitted).

This court will reverse the denial of a motion for a sentencing departure only if there is an exceptional basis justifying departure, or if the district court failed to exercise its discretion, see, review denied (Minn. Apr.

The district court considered and denied appellant’s motion for a downward dispositional departure from the guidelines, (holding that a sentencing court must assign a sentence within the presumptive range “‘unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances’ that distinguish a case”) (quoting Minn. Sent.

“[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 omitted).

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

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

As support for a dispositional departure, a defendant must show “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” (emphasis omitted)

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

Northwest v. LaFleur, 583.

DECISION In general, this 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.” State 3 v. Soto, -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

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 omitted).

This court affords a district court “great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse[s] sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto, 6 –08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

Guidelines 2.D.1 (2014); (“[A] sentencing court can exercise its discretion to depart from the guidelines only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present.” (quotation omitted)).

DECISION We afford a district court “‘great discretion in the imposition of sentences’ and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) ().

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines require that “[a] sentencing court ‘must pronounce a sentence within the applicable [guidelines] range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances’ that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” (quoting Minn. Sent.

(noting that “[a] sentencing court ‘must pronounce a sentence within the applicable range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances’” justifying a departure from the presumptive range (quoting Minn. Sent.

DECISION A sentencing court may exercise its discretion to depart from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (citations and quotations omitted).