Cited by

See, e.g., State v. Solberg , ; State v. Hicks , .

We will reverse the imposition of a presumptive sentence only in a “rare case.” Kindem, d at 7; see State v. Solberg , (“A district court abuses its discretion when its reasons for departure are legally impermissible and insufficient evidence in the record justifies the departure.”).

“We review a district court’s decision to depart from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Solberg

“We review a distric t court’s decision to depart from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.”

“We review a district court’s decision to depart from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.”

(stating that “it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart”); accord State v. Solberg , (“We review a district court’s decision to depart from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.”).

“A durational departure must be based on factors that reflect the seriousness of the offense, not the characteristics of the offender.”

“When the district court gives improper or inadequate reasons f o r a d o w n w a r d departure, [a reviewing court] m ay scrutinize the record to det ermine whether alternative grounds support the departure.” State v. Solberg , (emphasis omitted).

“A district court abuses 13 i t s d i s c r e t i o n w h e n i t s r e a s o n s f o r d e p a r t u r e a r e l e g a l l y i m p e rmissible and insufficient evidence in the record justifies the departure.” State v. Solberg

State v. Solberg , , 623 (Minn. 2016).

“We review a district court’s decision to depart from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.”

“A dispositional departure typically focuses on characteristics of the defendant that show whether the defendant is particularly suitable for indi vidualized treatment in a probationary setting.” See State v. Solberg , (emphasis added) (quotation omitted); see also Soto, d at 309 (“By requiring a defendant to be particularly 11 amenable to probation, therefore, we ensure that the defendant’s amenability to probation distinguishes the defendant from most others and truly presents the substantial

State v. Solberg , see also Minn. Sent.

Although remorse usually is offered in support of a request for a downward dispositional departure, it also may be offered to support a request for a downward durational departure, -26 (Minn. 2016).

Disposition “A dispositional departure places the offender in a different setting than that called for by the presumptive guidelines sentence.”

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

Kindem, d at 7; -24 (Minn. 2016).

(holding that defendant’s threats to kill police officers were not less serious because they were made with a reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing, as opposed to a purposeful intent to cause terror; the terroristic - threats statute prohibited both purposeful and reckless conduct); State v. Solberg , (holding that defendant’s sexual assault was not less serious than typical because it was accomplished using coercion and not violence —defendant’s use of coercion “fit s squarely within th

(“A dispositional departure typically focuses on characteristics of the defendant .

Dispositional departures may rest on the defendant’s characteristics that show he is “particularly suitable for individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” (emphasis added) ( see also Soto, 855 N.W .2d at 308–09 (emphasizing the need for particular amenability to probation, not just amenability to probation, to establish a substantial and compelling reason to depart).

State v. Solberg , , 623 (Minn. 2016) .

“The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines establish presumptive sentences for felony offenses,” seeking to “maintain uniformity, proporti onality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing of felony crimes.” State v. Solberg , (quotation omitted).

“We review a district court’s decision to depart from the presumptive guidelines 9 sentence for an abuse of discretion.”

Therefore, departures are discouraged unless “there are identifiable, substantial, an d compelling circumstances to support a departure.” (quotation omitted).

“When the district court gives improper or inadequate reasons for a downward departure, we may scrutinize the record to determine whether alternative grounds support the departure.” d 618, 623 (Minn. 2016) (emphasis omitted).

“[A] district court sits with a unique perspective on all stages of a case, including sentencing, and is in the best position to evaluate the offender’s conduct.” (quotation omitted).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has “consistently treated remorse as a factor that may support a downward dispositional departure.” (“ A primary justification for considering remorse in sentencing is that a defendant’s remorse bears on his or her ability to be rehabilitated.”).

Th erefore, departures from the guidelines are discouraged unless “there are identifiable, substan tial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” State v. Solberg , (quotation omitted).

Guidelines 2.D.1 (2016) ; see State v. Solberg , 5 (Minn. 2016) (“Because the [sentencing] guidelines’ goal is to create u niformity in sentencing, departures are justified only in exceptional cases.”).

(concluding that a single mitigating factor may support downward sentencing departure); (holding that a single aggrava ting factor may support upward sentencing departure).

(2016); d 618, 623 (Minn. 2016).

A dispositional departure focuses on the characteristics of the defendant and “whether the defendant is particularly suitable for individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” (quotation omitted).