Cited by

–17 (Minn. 2017) (“The Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, and Minnesota Statutes section 244.10, subdivision 2 (2016), all require the district court to make a record of its reasons for any deviation from the Guidelines.”); see also Minn. Stat. § 244.10, subd.

We are aware of only one precedential case in which a downward dispositional departure was granted and affirmed based on an offense -related factor: d 412 (Minn. 2017).

However, “failure to file a departure report is not itself sufficient grounds for reversal.”

But “failure to file a departure report is not itself sufficient grounds for reversal.” n.8 (Minn. 2017).

And in State v. Stempfley, the supreme court noted that its analysis in Carson, as well as “the common-sense meaning of minor and passive, show that whether a defendant’s role in an offense was minor or passive depends on a comparison of the defendant’s conduct to the conduct of other participants in the crime.” (quotations omitted).

These factors include whether the defendant played a “minor or passive role” in the commission of the offense, (quotation omitted), “the means by which the defendant committed the offense,” and “the resulting damage or loss,” (quotation omitted), which may include the impact on any direct or indirect victims, n.2 (Minn.

See Heywood, d at 244; 419 (Minn. 2017) (affirming downward dispositional departure based on respondent’s “minor or passive role” in the crime).

d 412, 417-18 (Minn. 2017)

419 (Minn. 2017) (affirming a district court decision granting a dispositional departure based on the defendant’s minor role in the crime).

“A dispositional departure is one that st ays a presumptively executed sentence, or executes a presumptively stayed sentence.” n.5 (Minn. 2017).

review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010) (concluding that if “the district cour t has identified proper grounds justifying a challenged departure, we review its decision whether to depart for an abuse of discretion”); (concluding that the district 3 We observe that applicable caselaw does not require a district court to describe the conduct involved in a typical offense when making this comparison.

3 DECISION “A dispositional departure is one that st ays a presumptively executed sentence, or executes a presumptively stayed sentence.” n.5 (Minn. 2017).

See State v. Stempfley , n.10 (Minn. 2017).

(“ Even if we might have come to a different conclusion had we been weighing the evidence ourselves, that is not the applicable standard upon appellate review”).

d 412, 418 (Minn. 2017) (holding that a district court may issue a dispositional departure when it finds that the offense is significantly less serious than the typical case); (“For a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider both offender - an

See State v. Stempfley , (holding that a court may depart when it finds that the offense is significantly less serious th an the typical case).

Deference in this situation is justified because the district court “was able to observe [Shinabarger’s] testimony and demeanor, as well as any gestures that [she] used to describe [her] conduct.”

Walker, d at 468; see also State v. Stempfley , (affirming a downward dispositional departure based on the defendant playing a minor role in the offense).

“Even if we might have come to a different conclusion had we been weighing the eviden ce ourselves, that is not the applicable st andard upon appellate review.” State v. Stempfley

D E C I S I O N Mouchka challenges the denial of his request for a downward dispositional departure.1 “District courts are most often in the best position to evaluate whether a sentencing departure is appropriate based on their unique perspective on all stages of a case.” State v. Stempfley , (quotation s omitted).

“Even if we might have come to a different conclusion had we been weighing the evidence ourselves, that is not the applicable st andard upon appellate review.” State v. Stempfley

See, (upholding a district court’s grant of a downward dispositional departure because the defendant played a “minor” or “passive” role in the offense).

Downward Dispositional Departure “District courts are most often in the best position to evaluate whether a sentencing departure is appropriate based on their unique perspective on all stages of a case.” (quotation omitted) .

State v. Stempfley , -18 (Minn. 2017).

Offense-related circumstances must show that the defendant’s conduct “was significantly more or less 6 serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (Mi nn.

4(C) (requiring a court when pronouncing sentence to make findings of fact supporting departure); - 19 (Minn. 2017) (affirming district court’s decision imposing a downward dispositional departure because record of hearing included sufficient findings).