Cited by

“Durational departures must be based on the nature of the offense, not the i ndividual characteristics of the offender.” (Mi nn.

State v. Solberg , 7 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted ).

State v. Solberg , (quotation omitted ).

A district court may only depart if it finds that there are “identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” (quotation omitted).

(holding that a single mitigating factor may justify a downward departure and listing cases affirming upward departures based on a single aggravating factor).

“A district court abuses its discretion when its reasons for departure are legally impermissible and insufficient evidence in the record justifies the departure.”

A durational departure “is a sentence that departs in length from the presumptive guidelines range.” State v. Solberg , d 618, 623 (Minn. 2016) (citing Minn. Sent.

Id.; accord State v. Solberg , (quotation omitted).

State v. Solberg , (quoting Minn. Sent.

“Consequently, departures from the guidelines are discouraged and are intended to apply to a small number of cases.” State v. Solberg

Departures “are discouraged and are intended to apply to a small number of cases.” State v. Solberg

See State v. Solberg , - 25 (Minn. 2016) (holding that a single mitigating factor may warrant downward durational departur e).

A downward departure may be ju stified if “the defendant’s conduct was significantly less serious than that typically in volved in the commission of the offense.” (quotation omitted); (affirming district court’s downward durational departure).

State v. Solberg , (quoting Minn. Sent.

“Consequently, departures from the guidelines are discouraged and are intended to ap ply to a small number of cases.” State v. Solberg

Although a dispositional departure is typically based on offender -specific characteristics, a district court may consider both offender- and offense-related factors when deciding whether to grant a dispositional departure, State v. Chaklos , d 225, 228 (Minn. 1995).

Therefore, departures are discouraged unless “there are ‘identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.’ ” (Minn .

“Consequently, departures from the guidelines are discouraged and are intended to apply to a small number of cases.” State v. Solberg

A district court must focus on the defendant in considering a dispositional departure by analyzing factors such as “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. Solberg , (quotation omitted).

-24 (Minn. 2016) (first two citations altered).

State v. Solberg , (quotation omitted).

6 (“[W]e have affirmed upward durational departures that were based on a single aggravating factor.”).

“A district court abuses its discretion when its reasons for departure are legally impermissible and insufficient evidence in the record justifies the departure.”

“[D]epartures from the guidelines are discouraged and are intended to apply to a small number of cases.”

Guidelines 2.D.1 (2017); -24 (Minn. 2016) (discu ssing circumstances to justify a durational departure); (Mi nn.