Cited by

If a defendant requests a downward dispositional 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)).

1 (2020); (further stating a district court may depart from the guidelines sentence “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence” (quotations omitted)).

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

5 DECISION The district court has “great discretion in the imposition of sentences and [appellate courts] reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

presents the substantial and compelling circumstances that are necessary to justify a departure.” -9 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

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

The district court has “great discretion in the imposition of sentences.” - 08 (Minn. 2014).

A district court may depart from the 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.” (emphasis omitted) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2018) (stating that a district court “must” sentence within the guidelines range “unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departur

1 We reverse a sentencing decision only when a district court abuses its “great discretion.” - 08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

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

(stating that limiting the number of sentencing departures “fosters uniformity in sentencing, which is a primary purpose of the Sentencing Guidelines”); Minn. Sent’g Guidelines cmt.

District courts are afforded “great discretion” in sentencing decisions and reversal is warranted “only for an abuse of that discretion.” - 08 (Minn. 2014) (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).

The district court has “great discretion in the imposition of sentences and [appellate courts] reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

(holding that district courts may consider “social or economic factor[s]” at sentencing if they are “relevant to determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation” (quotation omitted)).

The upward durational departure from the sentencing guidelines The district court may depart from the 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.” (quotation and citation 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 depart from the guidelines sentence only “if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are prese nt, and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (emphasis omitted) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Minn. Sent.

6 We review a district court’s decision to depart from a presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of its “great discretion.” (quotation omitted).

-86 (Minn. 2011); -08 (Minn. 2014).

District courts are afforded “great discretion in the imposition of sentences,” which appellate courts will reverse “only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

2.D.303 (Supp. 2019) ( ).

Guidelines 2.D.3 .a(8) (2019); State v. Soto

Guidelines 1.B.13 (2016)

-08 (Minn. 2014) ; State v. Larson

2.D.303 (d 303, 309 (Minn. 2014) ).

The guidelines provide a nonexclusive list of mitigating factors that may warrant a dispositional departure, including when the defendant is “particularly amenable to probation.” State v. Soto

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

8 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

d 303, 307–08 (Minn. 2014).

State v. Soto , (citing Minn. Sent.

DECISION District courts are afforded “great di scretion in the imposition of sentences,” and appellate courts will reverse a sentencing decision “only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , - 08 (Minn. 2014) (quotatio n omitted).

A downward dispositiona l departure may be appropriate if a defendant shows a “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” (quoting State v. Trog , ).