Cited by

“A guilty plea or guilty verdict is not a conviction.”

the issue is not properly before this court.” n.1 (Minn. App. 2018); see Roby v. State , (“[Appellate] court[s] generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.

And regarding the seriousness of Osborne’s offense and her culpability, as Osborne recognizes, w hen considering a motion for a downward dispositional departure, “a district court may consider both offender- and offense-related factors.”

However, a district court may consider “both offender- and offense-related factors for a downward dispositional departure.”

See Soto, d at 311-12; -69 (Minn. App. 2018).

at 623, but a district court may consider offense-related factors when determining whether to grant a dispositional departure

While a district court may make a dispositional sentencing departure when substantial and compelling circumstances are present, “[a] departure is not mandatory.”

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those that make a case atypical.”

-68 (Minn. App. 2018) (remanding to the district court with instructions to vacate the formal adjudication for one offense but to keep the underlying finding of guilt for that offense intact).

(determining that district court erred by listing conviction for lesser-included offense on warrant of commitment).

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those that make a case atypical.”

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those that make a case atypical.”

(recognizing that, when considering a 5 dispositional departure, “a district court may consider both offender- and offense-related factors”).

When deciding whether to grant a downward dispositional departure, “a district court may consider both offender- and offense-related factors.” State v. Walker, 9

The state’s suggested disposition is supported by this court’s in which the appellant was convicted of both an offense and a lesser-included offense, and this court concluded that the conviction of the lesser-included offense should be vacated but that the finding of guilt should remain intact.

“For a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider both offender- and offense-related factors.”

Further, c aselaw recognizes that, when considering a dispositional departure, “ a district court may consider both offender - and offense -related factors.” State v. Walker , (citing State v. Behl , ).

-69 (Minn. App. 2018) (concluding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a defendant’s motion for a dispositional departure despite “evidence of factors that could have supported a departure if they had been substantial or compelling”).

State v. Walker , d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018).

-69 (Minn. App. 2018) (concluding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dispositionally depart despite considering “evidence of factors that could have supported a departure if they had been substantial or compelling”).

-69 (Minn. App. 2018) (concluding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dispositionally depart despite considering “evidence of factors that could have supported a departure if they had been substantial or compelling”).

-69 (Minn. App. 2018) (concluding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dispositionally depart despite considering “evidence of factors that could have supported a departure if they had been substantial or compelling”).