Cited by

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

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a range of sentences that is presumed to be appropriate, 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.” (quotation omitted); accord Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2021); see also State v. Solberg, 882 (stating that the sentencing guidelines seek to “maint

Because dispositional departures 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 family.’” ().

(explaining that “‘particularly’ means ‘especially’ or ‘specifically’” and that “requiring a defendant to be particularly amenable to probation .

DECISION We grant a 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 citations omitted).

5(b) (2020), because he presented substantial and compelling circumstances that permit a

In assessing particular amenability to probation, a district court considers “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” see also 12 -09 (Minn. 2014) (stating that defendant must be particularly amenable to probation, not merely amenable).

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

The district court may exercise its discretion to depart from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present.” (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.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

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

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020)

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) ().

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).

n that typically involved in the commission of the offense,” and he contends that his conduct “was significantly less serious and less onerous than that typically involved in the commission of this offense.” 7 Appellate courts “afford the [sentencing] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

Generally, an appellate court will “reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014).

An appellate court affords the sentencing court wide discretion and will reverse a sentence “only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (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).

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 (2012)).