Cited by

In addition, we have held that a district court may “consider[] its grant of a downward dispositional departure when deciding whether to revoke probation.” aff’d

aff’d, (“An offense may be more serious than a typical crime when a large number of people are placed at risk or more people are put in fear than in the typical case.”); Edwards, d at 607 3 Madison did not appeal the denial of his motion for a downward durational departure.

will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” see also State v. Fleming , () (explaining that we do not presume error on appeal), aff’d

( (stating that “on appeal error is never presumed” (quotation omitted)), aff’d

d 319, 331 (Minn. App. 2015) (noting that the district court properly considered a grant of downward dispositional departure when deciding to revoke probation) , aff’d, d 790 (Minn. 2016).

(upholding district court’s consideration of downward dispositional departure in probation revocation), aff’d

will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”); () (demonstrating that we do not presume error on appeal), aff’d

“An offense may be more serious than a typical crime when a large number of people are placed at risk or more people are put in fear than in the typical case.” aff’d

d in the sentencing guidelines grid based on any aggravating factor arising from the same course of conduct.” The supreme court has interpreted the word “notwithstanding” as equivalent to “in spite of,” meaning “Minn. Stat. § 609.035 does not prevent a district court from imposing an aggravated sentence under the circumstances set forth in section 244.10, subdivision 5a(b).” -96 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

(noting that the district court properly considered a grant of downward dispositional departure when deciding to revoke probation), aff’d

Additionally, a district court may consider whether the offender received “a downward dispositional departure when deciding whether to revoke probation.” aff’d

d 579, 582 (Minn. 2024); n.8 (Minn. 2016) (explaining that “[t]he factors listed in the guidelines .

And the district court may consider the probationer’s original offense and intervening conduct, and a prior “grant of a downward dispositional departure when deciding whether to revoke probation.” Austin, d at 251; aff’d on other grounds

On appeal, “error is never presumed,” and “the burden of showing error rests upon the one who relies upon it.” (quotation omitted); (applying this principle from Loth in a criminal case), aff’d on other grounds

aff’d, (stating that the grant of a downward dispositional departure is a proper consideration when deciding to revoke probation).

6 probation”), aff’d on other grounds

(affirming district court’s upward durational sentencing departure 6 and acknowledging that district court considered mitigating factors that included appellant’s imperfect self-defense claim), aff’d

And this court’s -32 (Minn. App. 2015), aff’d, are instructive.

d 319, 331 ( Minn. App. 2015), aff’d

(providing that a district court may consider a grant of a downward dispositional departure when deciding whether to revoke probation), aff’d

aff’d, -65 (Minn. 1944).

(holding courts may properly consider the grant of a downward dispositional departure when deciding whether to revoke probation), aff’d

(stating that district court properly considered “its grant of a downward dispositional departure when deciding whether to revoke probation”), aff’d

See, (explaining that firing a gun six times in a park filled with children makes an illegal possession of a firearm conviction significantly more serious than a typical offense because of the large number of potential victims).

(providing that a district court may consider a “grant of a downward dispositional departure when deciding whether to revoke probation”), aff’d

(stating that the district court properly considered a “grant of a downward dispositional departure when deciding whether to revoke probation”), aff’d

1(2), to be committed to the commissioner of corrections for not less than five years); State v. Fleming , n.1 (Minn. App. 2015) (stating a statutorily mandated sentence is the presumptive sentence), aff’d

Modtland, d at 605; aff’d on other grounds

(quotation omitted); (applying this principle from Loth in a criminal case), aff’d on other grounds

(stating that the district court properly considered a “grant of a downward dispositional departure when deciding whether to revoke probation”), aff’d

(holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing and executing an upward durational sentencing departure because it properly applied the law after defendant pleaded guilty and waived their right to have a jury decide whether aggravating factors existed).

The decision to revoke probation “cannot be a reflexive reaction to an accumulation of technic al violations,” but this concern is alleviated when the evidence shows “the offender’s behavior demonstrates that he or she cannot be counted on to avoid antisocial activity.” aff’d

d 319, 331 (Minn. App. 2015), aff’d

aff’d on other 4 grounds

aff’d, (stating that a district court may consider an underlying downward dispositional departure when deciding whether to revoke probation).

d 319, 331 (Minn. App. 2015), aff’d

Austin, d at 251; State v. Fleming , aff’d

finement is necessary to protect the public from further crimin al activity by the offender,” or whether “the offender is in need of correctional treatment which can most effectively be provided if he is confined,” or if “it would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the violation if probation were not revoked.” aff’d on other grounds