Cited by

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1; see

And even if such circumstances are present, “[a] departure is not mandatory, and an appellate court will reverse a sentencing court’s refusal to depart only in a ‘rare’ case.” (quoting Kindem, d at 7).

1(e)(i); (explaining that a lesser-included offense is “a crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved” (quotation omitted)).

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

-69 (Minn. App. 2018) (concluding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dispositionally depart despite considering “evidence 5 of factors that could have supported a departure if they had been substantial or compelling”).

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1; see

Reversal is rare because even when circumstances are present that favor departure, “departure is not mandatory.”

A district court must pronounce a sentence within the presumptive sentencing range “unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2018) ; see also State v. Walker

State v. Walker , (citing Kindem, d at 7).

In sum, the record reflects that the district court “considered evidence of factors that could have supported a departure if they had been substantial or compelling, but concluded that a departure was not warranted.”

- 68 (Minn. App. 2018) (reversing and remanding to district court with instructions to vacate the formal adjudication of lesser-included offense, but not the finding of guilt regarding that offense).

d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018) (quoting Kindem, d at 7).

(quoting Kindem, d at 7).

State v. Walker , (quoting Kindem, d at 7).

d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018); Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1.

(quoting Kindem, d at 7).

d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018) ().

d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018); 4 (stating that the presence of a mitigating factor does not obligate a district court “to place defendant on probation”); Minn. Sent.

But when considering whether to grant a downward dispositional departure, as the court did here, “a district court may consider both offender- and offense-related factors.”

State v. Walker , (citing Kindem, d at 7); see also , (considering that presence of mitigating factor does not obligate district court “to place defendant on probation”); Minn. Sent.

State v. Walker , (M inn.

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

More recently, the court of appeals has said that the word “merging” should be avoided when discussing counts because it does “not clearly indicate the disposition intended by the district court.” State v. Walker

(citing Kindem, d at 7); see also State v. Wall , (stating that the presence of a mitigating factor does not obligate a district court “to place defendant on probation”); Minn. Sent.

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

State v. Walker , (quotation omitted).