Cited by

in which this court concluded that a district court erred in denying a departure motion by rejecting the defendant’s argument without exercising any discretion.

6 permissible due to compelling circumstances, the [district court] ‘may’ depart.”

(remanding when the district court failed to exercise discretion).

In support of this assertion, for the proposition that this court remanded “for the trial court to exercise discretion at sentencing to consider proper facts.” Curtiss is inapposite, however, because the facts involved a remand based on the district court’s denial of the appellant’s motion for a downward durational de

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.

Specifically, the postconviction court neglected to acknowledge that “a district 6 court may, in its discretion, refuse to accept a plea agreement and is not bound by a plea agreement as to any sentence to be imposed.” See Johnson, d at 918; -64 (Minn. App. 1984) (remanding for resentencing where a district court failed to exercise its discretion).

(stating “the district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence”), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

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.

He reasons that “[t]he court’s refusal to exercise its discretion and 11 weigh the reasons for and against a durational departure constitutes an abuse of discretion, especially in the face of [his] crime being significantly less serious than that typically associated with receiving profits from prostitution convictions.” to support his argument.

But, “[w]hen the record contains evidence of factors 5 supporting departure, which could have been, but were not, considered by the district court, we may remand for consideration of those factors.” Johnson, d at 925-26 ().

6 We are similarly unpersuaded by Litke’s

16, 2002); -64 (Minn. App. 1984)).

However, “[w]hen the record contains evidence of factors supporting departure, which could have been, but were not, considered by the district court, we may remand for consideration of those factors.” -26 (Minn. App. 2013) (), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

d 483, 487 n.4 (Minn. 2024) (“While not dispositive, the court of appeals has similarly held that a district court’s failure to exercise discretion constitutes an abuse of discretion.” ()); (“This is not that rare case where we interfere with the exercise of discretion, but a case where the exercise of discretion has not occurred.”).

(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

(“The court erred in putting aside arguments for departure rather than considering them alongside ‘valid reasons’ for non-departure.”); (“When the record demonstrates that an exercise of discretion has not occurred, the case must

“If the district co urt has discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence, it must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” State v. Pegel , (noting that the record had suggested factors for departure that the district court should deliberately consider).

see also Pegel, d at 255 (determining that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a departure motion when “ the record demonstrate [d] that the district court carefully considered circumstances for and against departure and deliberately exercised its discretion ”

(); rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

Henning primarily argues that he was entitled to a

And although the record must show that the district court deliberately considered the circumstances for and against departure, –64 (Minn. App. 1984), our review of the sentencing transcript convinces us that the district court did so.

8 -64 (Minn. App. 1984).

(stating that the district court “erred in putting aside arguments for departure rather than considering them alongside valid reasons for non-departure” because such an approach 12 constitutes a failure to exercise discretion (quotation omitted)).

He relies on this court’s in which we remanded for reconsideration after concluding that the district court had not considered all relevant mitigating factors.

(“[A] written explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.”).

6 If the “record suggests factors for departure,” those factors “should be deliberately considered.”

d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984) (remanding because the district court failed to exercise its discretion).