Cited by

d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

dispositional departure and (B) by imposing an executed 60 -month prison sentence within the presumptive guidelines range, despite his claim that the record established his particular amenability to probation.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 omitted).6 A district court “abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous v

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

45 “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).

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); (citing this provision of the sentencing guidelines).

This court 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).

If a defendant requests a downward departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘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).

Substantial and compelling circumstances are those “that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of a guidelines sentence.”

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

However, “[t]he use of an abuse-of-discretion standard in our review of sentencing decisions, while deferential, is not a limitless grant of power to the [district] court.” (quotation omitted).

“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.” (quotation omitted).

We afford district courts “great discretion in the imposition of sentences.” (quotation omitted).

DECISION The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a sentence or a range for the sentence that is “presumed to be appropriate.” (citation 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).

When reviewing a sentence, 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).

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines “prescrib[e] a sentence or range of sentences that is presumed to be appropriate.” (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).

d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014).

(quoting Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012)).

The state argues that the district court’s decision “is supported by the record and is consistent with the wide discretion afforded to district courts.” The district court must impose a presumptive sentence unless “aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence[.]” (quotations and citation omitted).

(credibility); Wenthe, d at 306 (evidentiary rulings); d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014) (sentencing); (jury instructions), rev. denied (Minn. July 21, 2015).