Cited by

Here, the district court convicted Doan-Hanson of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and imposed four consecutive sentences at the top range of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines range of 172 months each, resulting in a total aggregate sentence of 688 months.

State v. Vazquez , see State v. Poole , aff’d

An appellate court may “modify the sentence of an appealing defendant if that appears to be in the interests of fairness and uniformity.”

(quotation omitted); see also State v. Vazquez , -12 (Minn. 1983).

See State v. Vazquez , -12 (Minn. 1983).

Blanchard also contends that he should have received lesser sentences on the ground that Delacruz, whom Blanchard describes as “the acknowledged kingpin,” “received only a slight ly longer sentence.” We have reviewed the case cited by Blanchard, and the cases cited therein, and we decline the invitation to reduce Blanchard’s sentences to make them more proportional to Delacruz’s sentence.

Trevino also cites State v. Vazquez , in which the supreme court considered an argument that the defendant’s sentence “should be reduced to that received by one of his two accomplices” because “one of the purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines is to achieve equity and uniformity in sentencing.”

First, d 110, 112 (Minn. 1983), for the proposition that the supreme court “has discretion in individual cases to modify the sentence of an appealing defendant if that appears to be in the interests of fairness and uniformi ty.

On September 8, 2017, nearly three years after he was sentenced , Reynolds petitioned for postconviction relief, arguing that he is entitled to a sentence that is less than 94 months because (1) under the DSRA, the conduct for which he was convicted constitutes 3 a second-degree controlled-substance crime and (2) under State v. Vazquez , d 110, 112 (Minn. 1983), the interests of fairness and uniformity in sentencing requires it.

While a sentence may be modified “in the interests of fairness and uniformity,” it is also true that “equality and fairness in sentencing involve more than comparing the sentence the 11 appealing defendant received wi th the sentence his accomplices received.”

It also involves comparing the sentence of the defendant with those of other offenders.” d 110, 112 (Minn. 1983).

He cites cases providing that an appellate court may modify a sentence in the interests of uniformity and fairness, or on “a strong feeling” that the sentence is not proportional to the severity of the crime and the defendant’s criminal history

It also involves comparing the sentence of the defendant with those of other offenders.”

But the supreme court has also stated and demonstrated that it “has discretion in individual cases” and that despite the district court’s discretion, the supreme court will use its own discretion on appeal from upward sentencing departures to alter a sentence “in the interests of fairness and uniformity.” (reducing sentence without explanation except that “we believe that this is not such an extraordinary case that a greater-than-double durational departure is justified”); (reducing sentence and

2(b) (2006), or that modification is “in the interest of ‘fairness and uniformity.’” ().

2(b) (2004), or that such a result is in the interest of “fairness and uniformity.”

-71 (Minn.1988) (reducing sentence as unfair); (upholding sentence as uniform with other similarly situated offenders).

“This court has discretion in individual cases to modify the sentences of an appealing defendant if that appears to be in the interests of fairness and uniformity.” Minn.Stat.

*925 (permitting consideration of sentences of co-defendants and other offenders).

(appellate court has discretion to modify sentence in interests of fairness and uniformity).