Cited by

“A sentencing [judge] must pronounce a sentence within the applicable range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances that distinguish a case.” (quotation omitted).

“We ‘afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences’ and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that disc retion.” State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quoting State v. Spain , ).

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

“A 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.” State v. Soto , (emphasi s omitted) (quotations omitted) (citations omitted).

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

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

To justify a departure, a district court must find mitigating circumstances that “provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , (quotation omitted).

A district court must impose a sentence within the guidelines “unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” Id.; accord State v. Soto

“[A] 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.” (quotations and citations omitted).

“[A] 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 4 sentence.” State v. Soto , (cita tions and quotations 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).

“[A] 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.” (quotations and citations omitted).

The requirement that a defendant be “particularly” amenable to probation “ensure[s] 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.” (quoting Minn. Sent.

“[A] 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.” State v. Soto , (citations and quotations omitted).

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a sentence or a range for the sentence 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).

Appellate courts “‘afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences’ and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” See State v. Soto , 4 -08 ( Minn. 2014) (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Spain , ).

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).

To depart from the guide lines range, a sentencing court must find mitigating circumstances that show “a substantial a nd compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , 8 (Minn. 2014) (quota tion 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.” State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (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.” State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) ( (M inn.

We “afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentenci ng decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

State v. 13 Soto, Cottew, d at 636-38.

The district court has broad discretion in sentencing, State v. Soto , –08 (Minn. 2014), and we see no abuse of discretion here.

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).

urt abused its discretion by denying his motion for a downward dispositional departure from the sentencing guidelines “because there were substantial and compelling circumstances to warrant the departure.” Reviewing courts “afford th e [district] court great di scretion in th e imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions on ly for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (M inn.

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

(“The use of an abuse-of-discretion standard in our review of sentencing decisions, while deferential, is not a limitless grant of power to the trial court.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

One factor is whether the offender is “particularly amenable to probation .” see also Minn. Sent.

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

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

“[A] 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.” State v. Soto , (citations and quotations omitted).

-09 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a sentence or range of sentences that “is presumed to be appropriate.” State v. Soto , 7 (quotation omitted).

Guidelines 2.D.1.c (2018); (noting that a district court abuses its discretion when it departs from the sentencing guidelines unless it determines that “identifiable, 4 substantial and compell ing circumstances” exist to justify a departure).

Appellate courts afford a district cour t “great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions on ly for an abuse of that discretion.” - 08 (Minn. 2014) (quotatio n omitted).