Cited by

See State v. Misquadace , (holding that even a bargained-for sentencing departure may be reviewed for adequacy).

(quoting State v. Misquadace , ).

–92 (Minn. App. 2001) (“Although there are various ways to present the factual basis for a guilty plea, all o f them contemplate the disclosure 8 on the record of the specific facts that would establish the elements of the crime to which the defendant is pleading guilty.”), aff’d

Barnard also relies on State v. Misquadace , which requires district courts to “articulate substantial and compelling circumstances other than a plea agreement when departing from the guidelines.”

*728 Generally, a criminal defendant may neither waive nor forfeit the issue of a proper and correct criminal history score, an issue which is fundamental to the state’s “public policy to maintain uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing.” -47 (Minn. 2007) ().

the conviction[s] and the plea agreement.”); (noting that state is allowed to withdraw from plea when sentences at issue are part of a package deal and modification by this court would allow defendant to retain all benefits of plea agreement but escape the consequences of agreement to which he agreed), aff'd on other grounds

“To maintain uniformity and proportionality, departures from the presumptive guidelines sentence are discouraged.” ().

d 487, 491–92 (Minn. App. 2001), aff’d

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

-68 (Minn. 2002) (explaining that the purpose of the guidelines is to reduce sentencing disparity); Minn. Sent.

Although the Legislature has the power to fix the limits of punishment for a crime, “the imposition of a sentence in a particular case within those limits is a judicial function.”

t reversed and remanded for resentencing because the erroneous sentence was part of “an intricate plea agreement involving many crimes” in which “[e]verything was interrelated” such that “it would be inappropriate for this court to make piecemeal corrections without regard to the effect of the corrections on the plea bargain.” aff’d

A district court may depart from a presumptive guidelines sentence if the departure is warranted by “substantial and compelling circumstances.” –69 (Minn. 2002).

“Although there are various ways to present the factual basis for a guilty plea, all of them contemplate the disclosure on the record of the specific facts that would establish the elements of the crime to which the defendant is pleading guilty.” -92 (Minn. App. 2001), aff’d

“A district court’s decision to depart from the sentencing guidelines is within that court’s discretion, and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”

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

The Minnesota Supreme Court has held “that plea agreements cannot form the sole basis of a sentencing departure.”

it would be inappropriate for this court to make piecemeal corrections without regard to the effect of the corrections on the plea bargain”), aff’d