Cited by

fendant 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. 1995).

-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); -29 (Minn. 1995) (holding that district court did not err by ordering upward dispositional departure based on offense- related factor).

“A durational departure must be based on factors that reflect the seriousness of the offense, not the characteristics of the offender.” ().

8 departures,” and “age and lack of a felony record are not valid bases for durational departures.” ( and Bauerly, d at 762), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

2 to support its argument that the district court could not rely on an offense-based factor.

Walker, d at 468; d 225, 228 (Minn. 1995).

App. 2018) (citing State v. Chaklos , ).

WL 4 13345, at *1 (Minn. App. Jan.

2005) (“Upward dispositional departures under the guidelines may be based on either offender- or offense- related aggravating factors.”); (stating 11 that “offense-related aggravating factors may be used to support not only such a dispositional departure but, alte rnatively, an upward dura tional departure” (emphasis omitted)).

a dispositional departure.”

State v. Walker , (citing State v Chaklos , ).

Although a dispositional departure is typically based on offender -specific characteristics, a district court may consider both offender- and offense-related factors when deciding whether to grant a dispositional departure, State v. Chaklos , d 225, 228 (Minn. 1995).

State v. Walker , ( “For a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider both offender - and offense-related factors.”); see also, e.g. , State v. A llen, (“Upward dispositional departures under the guidelines may be based on either offender - or offense- related aggravating factors.”); (stating that “offense-related aggrav ating factors may be used to support not only such a dispositional departure but, alternatively, an upward durational departure ” (emphasis omitted)).

Particular amenability is based on offender-related factors, including “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remo rse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” Id.; see also State v. Chaklos

See State v. Chaklos , (vacating lesser included DWI offenses in criminal vehicular homicide case on the ground that DWI convictions constituted lesser included offenses), rev’d in part on other grounds

then concluded, “I just can’t ignore 160 pounds.” In State v. Chaklos, the supreme court noted that offense-related factors may be used to support dispositional departures, and ultimately concluded that an upward dispositional departure was justified because the defendant’s conduct was “ significantly more serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” d 225, 228 (Minn. 1995).

in which the defendant was convicted of criminal vehicular homicide and criminal vehicular operation after he rear-ended a vehicle while intoxicated.

28 (Minn. 1995) (stating that “the sentencing court may take into consideration the offense -related conduct of trying to pin the blame for the offense on someone else”).

State v. Chaklos , see also Soto, d at 313 (considering circumstances of offense when reviewing departure request).

State v. Behl , , 713 (Minn. App. 1998) (citing State v. Chaklos , , 228 (Minn. 1995) ).

(citing State v. Chaklos , ), review denied (Minn. Mar.

(citing State v. Chaklos , ) , review denied (Minn. Mar.

see also Soto, d at 313 (considering circumstances of offense when reviewing departure request).

see also Soto, d at 313 (considering circumstances of offense of conviction when reviewing dispositional departure).