Cited by

A district court abuses its discretion if its reasons for a sentencing departure are “improper or inadequate.”

State v. Rund , – 33 (Minn. 2017).

“Substantial and compelling circumstances for a durational departure are those which demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” d 527, 532 (Minn. 2017) (quotations omitted).

“A durational departure must be based on factors that reflect the seriousness of the offense, not the characteristics of the offender.” Id.; (“Durational departures may be justified by offense-related reasons only.”).

Appellate courts may then consider whether the defendant’s “conduct fits squarely within the statute’s prohibition .”

“Durational departures may be justified by offense-related reasons only.”

–33 (Minn. 2017); Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a.(1).

(stating that threat to “kill police officers in tweets” fits within terroristic- threats statute prohibition of terrorizing or exhibiting a reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing).

“A district court abuses its discretion when its reasons for departure are improper or inadequate.”

1; (“[T]he terroristic-threats statute includes more than one mens rea: either the purpose of terrorizing or a reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing.”).

8 which the court expressly stated, albeit in a footnote, that “mental impairment is an offender-related characteristic that cannot justify a downward durational departure.” n.11 (Minn. 2017).

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2022)

A durational departure, by contrast, considers whether the defendant’s conduct was “significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotations omitted).

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 1.A, 2.D.1 (Supp. 2021)

Thus, “[d]urational departures may be justified by offense-related reasons only.” see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3 (2022) (providing a “nonexclusive list of factors” that a district court may use to depart).

-35 (Minn. 2017); , 625-26 (Minn. 2016).

“A district court abuses its discretion when its reasons for departure are improper or inadequate.”

-36 (Minn. 2017) (holding that district court erred by ordering downward durational departure based on offender-related factors); -27 (Minn. 2016) (holding that district court erred by ordering downward durational departure based on remorse)

“Substantial and compelling circumstances for a durational departure are those which demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that 3 typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” d 527, 532 (Minn. 2017) (quotations omitted).

“When the district court gives improper or inadequate reasons for a downward departure, [appellate courts] may independently examine the record to determine whether alternative grounds support the departure.” -33 (Minn. 2017).

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020)

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines II.D (2008)

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020)

“Substantial and compelling circumstances for a durational departure are those which demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotation omitted).

“Substantial and compelling circumstances for a durational departure are those which demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than 4 that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotation omitted).

(recognizing the district court’s “great discretion in the imposition of sentences” (quotation omitted)).

A district court abuses its sentencing discretion if it relies on an improper ground or “the record contains insufficient evidence to justify the departure.”

“Substantial and compelling circumstances for a durational departure are ‘those which demonstrate that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.’” ().

State v. Rund , (quota tion omitted).