Cited by

The record shows that the district court exercised its discretion, “weigh[ed] reasons for and against departure,” and “made a deliberate decision.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

In Mendoza, we remanded the district court’s denial of a dispositional departure because the district court improperly considered Mendoza’s immigration status during 2 Cosme cites the following opinions: rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

4, 2025) (affirming on similar grounds where district court did not explicitly deny motion for downward durational departure).3 Fierro disagrees, require a different result.

“If the district court has discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence, it must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

in support of his argument that remand is appropriate when a district court fails to articulate its reasons for denying a defendant’s departure request.

The district court “must exercise [its] discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

Chajon argues that the record contains legitimate reasons for departure, but the district court abused its discretion by not “deliberately considering [the] circumstances for and against departure.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

(holding that a district court abuses its discretion by failing to weigh reasons for and against departure); (holding that a district court abuses its discretion when it considers improper reasons for departure: immigration status and possible deportation), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

“If the district court has discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence, it must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

If the district court chooses to depart from a presumptive sentence, “it must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

(); rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

at 264; (remanding for resentencing where the district court did not appear to exercise any discretion in denying a departure motion), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

17, 2013); (remanding for resentencing where the district court did not appear to exercise any discretion in denying a departure motion), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

(remanding for resentencing where “we cannot conclude from the record that the district court made a deliberate decision to impose presumptive sentences by weighing reasons for and against departure”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

The state, as part of its argument that Serbus has forfeited this issue, claims “there exists a narrow line of cases justifying reversal of a guidelines sentence when the trial court declines to consider valid mitigating factors” , rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

(noting that the court was reversing and remanding a case because “an exercise of discretion may not have occurred”), rev. denied 7 (Minn. Apr.

deliberately consider[] 8 circumstances for and against departure.”

See State v. Mendoza , review denied (Minn. Apr.

d 262, 263-64 (Minn. App. 1984) (discussing a downward durational departure); review denied (Minn. Apr.

See State v. Mendoza, 6 (stating that consideration of improper factors in denying a downward dispositional departure does not require reversal “unless circumstances exist that would support a departure” and the district court failed to consider those circumstances), review denied (Minn. Apr.

A district court exercises its discretion by “deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” review denied (Minn. Apr.

And in State v. Mendoza , the record was unclear as to whether the district court made a deliberate decision to impose a presumptive sentence for two defendants because the district court erroneously concluded that the defendants ’ immigration status es rendered probation “impossible and impractical .” -84 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Apr.

review denied (Minn. Apr.

If a defendant requests a downward departure, however, the district court must “deliberately consider[] the circumstances for and against departing.” review denied (Minn. Apr.

State v. Mendoza , 3 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Apr.

See State v. Mendoza , review denied (Minn. April 16, 2002).

If a defendant requests a downward dispositional departure, the district court must “deliberately consider[] circumstances for and against departure,” review denied (Minn. Apr.

In exercising its discretion, the district court must “deliberately consider[] circumstances for and against departure.” review denied (Minn. Apr.

Guidelines 2.D.2 (2016) (listing factors on which the district court should not rely); (remanding because exercise of discretion by district court “may not have occurred”), review denied (Minn. Apr.

State v. Mendoza , review denied (Minn. Jan.

If a mitigating or aggravating circumst ance is present , the district court must “deliberately consider[] circumstances for and against departure.” review denied (Minn. Apr.

In exercising its discretion, the district court must “deliberately consider[] circumstances for and against departure.” 6 review denied (Minn. Apr.

Circumstances For and Against Departure “If the district court has discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence, it must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against 9 departure.” State v. Mendoza , 3 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Apr.

If a defendant requests a downward dispositional departure, the district court must “deliberately consider[] circumstances for and against departure .” review denied (Minn. Apr.

2 (Minn. App. 2002) (stating that “[s]entencing a defendant on the basis of alienage is unconstitutional”), review denied (Minn. Apr .

review denied (Minn. Apr.

“[I]t must exercise that discre tion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” review denied (Minn. Apr.

Appellant argues that this court must remand for resent encing because it is not possible to “conclude from the record that the district court made a deliberate decision to impose [a] presumptive sentence[] by weighing reasons for and against departure.” review denied (Minn. Apr.