Cited by

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).

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

“Accordingly, 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 guideline sentence.” State v. Soto , (alteration in original) (quotations and citations 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).

A sentence or range of sentences pres cribed under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines “is presumed to be appropriate.” State v. Soto , , 308 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

“[A] sentencing court can exercise its discretion to d epart from the guidelines only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, and those circumstances provide a su bstantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (citations and quotations omitted).

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.” State v. Soto , (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Sent.

Particular amenability to probation is a proper ground to support a district court’s departure decision, d 303, 309 (Minn. 2014), and includes consideration of “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” State v. Trog

State v. Soto , –08 (Minn. 2014) (footnote and quotation omitted).

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelin e s p r e s c r i b e a r a n g e o f s e n t e nc e s , a n d t h e sentencing court “must pronounce a sentence within the applicable range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances that di stinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” d 303, 308 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted); see M i n n .

2 D E C I S I O N 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) .

307-08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts “afford the [di strict] 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 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.” State v. Soto , ( and Minn. Sent.

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

see also State v. Soto , , 308 (Minn. 2014) (noting that a sentencing court can exercise discretion to depart from guidelines only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present and those circumstances provide substantial and compelling reason not to impose guidelines sentence).

Id.; see also State v. Soto , (noting that a sentencing court can exercise discretion to depart from guidelines only if aggrav ating or mitigating circumstances are present and those circumstances provide substantial and compelling reason not to impose guidelines sentence).

On review, we “ afford the [distric t] 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 , (quotation omitted).

“In sentencing, district courts have a great deal of discretion.” State v. Soto

On appeal, we afford the district court “grea t discretion in the imposi tion of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , –08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation and footnote omitted).

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a range of sentences 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.” d 303, 308 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted); See Minn. Sent.

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. 6 Soto, -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).

3 and Kirby for support, but both cases are distinguishable.

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

A sentence or range of sentences prescribed under the Minnesot a Sentencing Guidelines “is presumed to be appropriate.” (quotation omitted).

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

–08 (Minn. 2014) (analyzing calculation of criminal-history score for an abuse of discretion).

5(2); (“A sentencing court must pronounce a sentence within the appli cable range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances t hat distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” (quotation omitted)).1 Among its duties, the sentenci

This standard, “while deferential, is not a limitless grant of power to the [district] court.” State v. Soto , (quotation omitted).

“We 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).

If a defendant requests a downward dispositional departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘mitigating circumstances are present’” an d, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , ( and Minn. Sent.

D E C I S I O N 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).

This court affor ds district courts “great discretion in the imposition of sentences and [will] reverse se ntencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , -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 and footnote omitted).