Cited by

“If the reasons given [for a departure] are improper or inadequate and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure, [it ] will be reversed.”

7 “will examine the record to determine if the reasons given justify the departure.”

and argued that the general rule is that if no reasons for departure are stated on the record at the time of sentencing, a departure is not allowed.

“If the reasons given are improper or inadequate and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure, the departure will be reversed.” ().

If the reasons given justify the departure, the departure will be allowed.”

But “[i]f no reasons for departure are stated on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.”

“If reasons supporting the departure are stated, [appellate] court[s] will examine the record to determine if the reasons given justify the departure.”

In Williams v. State, the supreme court announced the general rule that “[i]f the reasons given [for departure] are improper or inadequate, but there is sufficient evidence in the record to justify departure, the departure will be affirmed.”

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D (2020) (requiring substantial and compelling reasons for a departure); (requiring a district court to state its reasons for an upward departure on the record, and holding that absent such a record, no upward departure will be allowed); (requiring a district court to identify its departure reasons on the record).

d 840, 844 (Minn. 1985).

at 533; d 840, 844 (Minn. 1985).

Pursuant to th e (“If the reasons [for departure] are improper or inadequate and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure, the departure will be reversed.”), we reverse and remand for resentencing within the range of the sentencing guidelines.

(holding that, “absent a statement of the reasons for the sentencing dep arture placed on the record 11 at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed”); d 840, 844 (Minn. 1985) (“If no reasons for departure are stated on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.”).

In support of that contention, in which the supreme court stated, “If no reasons for departure are stated on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.” Id.

See Williams v. State , (stating that if reasons given jus tify the departure, the departure will be affirmed); cf. State v. Rund , -36 (Minn. 2017) (independently examining the record to determine if alternative grounds exist to support the departure).

If reasons for the departure are stated on the record, this court then “examine[s] the record to determine if the reasons given justify the departure.”

In Williams v. State , the Minnesota Supreme Court, to ensure future compliance with sentencing departures, adopted a clear rule stating that “ [i]f no reasons for departure 9 are stated on the record at the time of sentencing, no departur e will be allowed.”

Appellant cites State v. Geller, which held that “absent a statement of the reasons for the sentencing departure placed on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.” ().

A district court abuses its discretion when its reasons fo r departure are “improper or inadequate and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure.”

9 “If the reasons given [for a departure] are improper or inadequate, but there is sufficient evidence in the record to justify departure, the departure will be affirmed.”

Specifically, “[i] f the reasons given are improper or inadequate and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure, [it] will be reversed.”

(stating that “[i]f the reasons given justify the departure, the departure will be allowed” and that even “[i]f the reasons given are improper or inadequate, but there is sufficient evidence in the record to justify departure, the departure will be affirmed”).

“If no reasons for departure are stated on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.”