Cited by

(expressly applying the new rule of law to that case and prospectively “[g]iven the purposes to be served, the extent of reliance by the parties and courts on previous standards, and the effect of retroactivity on the administration of justice,” despite the parties’ apparent lack of briefing or arg

at 312; (“[A] plea agreement —standing alone—is not a sufficient basis to depart from the sentencing guidelines.”).

This court affirmed the conviction but reversed the sentence and remanded with instructions to impose the presumptive sentence

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines cmt.

gain”); (“A sentencing court may not use elements of a dropped charge as aggravating factors unless the defendant admitted to that conduct.”); -02 (Minn. 1994) (explaining that it was error to consider conduct underlying a dismissed charge in imposing an upward durational departure); (“[T]he grounds for departure must reflect whether the offense is any more or less serious than the typical offense of conviction, mindful that any uncharged or dismissed offenses are not to be considered .

The sentencing guidelines contain a list of recognized departure reasons that “are intended to apply to a small number of cases.”

The purpose of the guidelines “is to establish rational and consistent sentencing standards that promote public safety, reduce sentencing disparity, and ensure that the sanctions imposed for felony convictions are proportional to the severity of the conviction offense and the [defendant’s] criminal history.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 1.A (Supp. 2021)

to argue that the district court improperly based its sentencing decision on an erroneous view of the law when the court considered the parties’ lack of agreement as a reason for finding no substantial or compelling circumstances to depart.

(ruling that district court on remand could consider motions to vacate or to modify plea agreement and reconsider its own decision to accept plea agreement when challenged sentences were part of “package” plea agreement), aff’d

see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines cmt.

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines aim to foster “uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing.”

does not create such circumstances in its own right.” -80 (Minn. App. 2005).

20 5 (2020); (“In light of a court’s discretion in sentencing, the sentencing guidelines were created to assure uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing.”).

Although the legislature enjoys the power to fix the limits of punishment for convicted criminals, “the imposition of a sentence in a particular case wit hin those limits is a judicial function.” State v. Misquadace , .

(citing State v. Misquadace , ).

State v. Misquadace , aff’d

Circumstances are considered substantial and compelling when “the defendant’s co nduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”

DECISION The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines aim to foster “uniform ity, proportionality, rationality, and predictab ility in sentencing.” State v. Misquadace

Finally, in State v. Misquadace, 8 we remanded to the district court—rather than modifying the defendant’s sentence— because the plea agreement wa s “intricate.” , 491 (Minn. App. 2001), aff’d

5 (2016); (“In light of a court ’s discretion in sentencing, the sentencing guidelines were created to assure uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing .”).

“[N]egotiated plea agreements that include a sentencing departure are justified under the guidelines in cases where substantial and compelling circumstances exist,” but “plea agreements cannot form the sole basis of a sentencing departure.”

“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that ‘the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.’ ” ().

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines were created to ensure “uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing.” State v. Misquadace , see also Minn. Sent.

The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines were created to ensure “uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing.” State v. Misquadace

“Plea agreements involving multiple crimes are often ‘intricate’ and require a delicate balancing of competing considerations.” State v. Montermini , (citing State v. Misquadace , aff’d, ).

State v. Misquadace , see also Minn. Sent.

in cases where substantial and compelling circumstances exist.” State v. Misquadace

less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.’” ().

See State v. Misquadace , (stating that the sentencing guidelines promote “uniformity, proportionality, rationality, an d predictability in sentencing”).

See, e.g., State v. Misquadace , (holding that a district court errs “by basing its departures from the presumptive sentences under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines solely on a plea 17 agreement without additional substantial and compelling justification for departure”).

A district court may depart upward from the presumptive sentence under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines “provided th at the court finds and makes a record of a substantial and compelling justification for a departure.” d 65, 69 (Minn. 2002); Minn. Sent.