Cited by

- 54 (Minn. App. 2011) ().

(“[T]hat a mitigating factor was clearly present did not obligate the court to place defendant on probation .

Even if the record di d support a finding that appellant is particularly amenable to probation, “the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does ‘not obligate the court to place de fendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.’” -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (); -65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defe ndant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do s

7 (Minn. 1981) (“[T]he Guidelines state that when substantial and compelling circumstances are prese nt, the judge ‘may’ depart.”); -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (noting that a district court must consider the circumstances of a case when deciding whether to depart, but that the presence of mitigating factors does not obligate a departure) ().

“[T]he presence of mitiga ting factors does ‘not oblig ate the court to place a defendant on probation or impose a shor ter term than the presumptive term.’” (), review denied (Minn. Feb.

See Martinson, d at 891 -92 (affirming downward durational departure for a defendant who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia that, at the time of the 6 offense, caused p sychotic delusions); see also State v. Wall , (modifying upward departure to presumptive sentence because defendant was schizophrenic and lacked substantial capacity for judgment at time of offense ).

4 “[T]he presence of mitigati ng factors does ‘not obligat e the court to place [a] defendant on probation or impose a shor ter term than the presumptive term.’” (second alteration in original) (), review denied (Minn. Feb.

5 Wood argues that “[t] he district court abused its discretion bec ause [his] lack of substantial capacity for judgment based on his extreme mental impairment justified a downward departure.” But the presence of a mitigating factor “ [does] not obligate the [district] court to place [a] defendant on probation.”

However, the presence of mitigating factors “[does] not obligate the court to place [the] defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.”

However, the presence of mitigating factors “[does] not obligate the court to place defendant on probation.”

A mitigating factor should not be “ignored” in considering whether a “defendant’s conduct [is] particularly deserving of punishment.” -6 (Minn. 1984) (modifying upward 7 durational departure to a presumptive sentence when the district court considered aggravating factors but failed to consider the mitigating factor of a defendant’s mental illness).

review denied (Minn. Jan.

(“The fact that a mitigating factor was clearly present did not obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.”); see also Bertsch, d at 668 (stating that appellate court “will not ordinarily interfere with a [presumptive guidelines]

(noting that the presence of mitigating factors “[does] not obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term”).

However, the presence of mitigating factors “[does] not obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.”

However, the presence of one or more mitigating factors “[does] not obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.”

(stating that “we will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure” (quotation omitted) (alteration

Id.; (stating that the presence of mitigating factors does “not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation”).

(stating that “we will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure” (quotation omitted)).

However, Minnesota law is clear that the presence of a mitigating factor “[does] not obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.”

Indeed, our supreme court has explained that the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does “not obligate the court to place defendant on probation.”

But the presence of a mitigating factor in a particular case does “not obligate the court to place defendant on probation.”

But the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does “not obligate the court to place defendant on probation.”