Cited by

DECISION “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).

DECISION 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).

A district court may exercise its discretion to depart from the presumptive guidelines range “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present.” (quotation omitted).

District courts are afforded “great discretion in the imposition of sentences[.]” (quotation omitted).

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).

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines permit a district court to depart from a presumptive sentence only if “identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances are present.” (quotations omitted).

The “sentencing court can exercise its discretion 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.” (citations and quotations omitted).

8 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2022).

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).

–08 (Minn. 2014) (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.” (quoting Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1).

See State v. Soto , 12 (Minn. 2014) (noting that “ a few of the factors that we have recognized as po tentially relevant might suggest that [the defendant] could be amenable to probation ,” but “ those factors, individually and collectively, provide very little support for the further conclusion that [the defendant] had any parti

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).

res are based on the characteristics of the offender, the focus is on “several factors that can be relevant to determining if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, including ‘the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or 5 family.’” ().

But the Trog factors “are not the only factors that can bear on a defendant’s amenability to probation, and they may not all be relevant in any given case.” d 303, 310 (Minn. 2014).

“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).

truly presents the substantial and compelling circumstances that are necessary to justify a departure.” (quotation omitted).

Although the district court has broad discretion in sentencing, – 08 (Minn. 2014), it may not depart downward from the presumptive sentence designated by the sentencing guidelines unless substantial and 4 compelling mitigating circumstances exist, Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 1.A.6 (2022).

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020)

DECISION “[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).

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).

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D (202 2)

d 303, 307–08 (Minn. 2014).

Mere amenability to probation is insufficient; the defendant must be particularly amenable in a way that “distinguishes the defendant from most others and truly presents the substantial and compelling circumstances that are necessary to justify a departure.” (quotation omitted).

This requirement 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 “prescrib[e] a sentence or range of sentences that is presumed to be appropriate.” (quotation omitted).

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

DECISION The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines “prescrib[e] a sentence or range of sentences that is presumed to be appropriate.” (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 a guidelines sentence.” d 303, 308 (Minn. 2014) (quoting Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1).

Substantial and compelling circumstances may support a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is “particularly amenable to probation.” d 303, 309 (Minn. 2014).