Cited by

See Williams, d at 844; (explaining that this court could not remand departure for additional findings).

and its subsequent line of cases.

“If the reasons given are improper or inadequate and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure, the departure will be reversed.” ().

d 514, 517 (Minn. 2003).

But “[i]f the reasons given are 4 improper or inadequate and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure, the departure will be reversed.” (quotation omitted).

And “absent a statement of the reasons for the sentencing departure placed on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.”

In this situation, an appellate court may not remand the case to the district court for “another opportunity to state the reasons for departure.” Rannow, d at 580 ().

Generally, a departure will not be allowed “absent a statement of the reasons for the sentencing departure placed on the record at the time of sentencing.”

And “absent a statement of the reasons for the sentencing departure placed on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.”

(holding 6 that, when no reasons for departure were given by the district court, a reviewing court must reverse and remand for the imposition of the presumptive guidelines sentence).

If a district court imposes an upward d eparture but fails to place its rationale for the departure on the record, “no departure will be allowed.” see also Misquadace , d at 72 (“[A]ll departures from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines must be supported by substantial and compelling circumstances.”).

(“[A]bsent a statement of the reasons for sentencing departure placed on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.”).

(holding that, “absent a statement of the reasons for the sentencing dep arture placed on the record 11 at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed”); d 840, 844 (Minn. 1985) (“If no reasons for departure are stated on the record at the time of sentencin

in which the supreme court applied Williams and concluded that, because “the sentencing court did not state the reasons for departure on the record at the time of sentencing, .

We review 6 a district court’s denial of a sentencing departure for an abuse of discretion, and will reverse a presumptive sentence only in “rare” cases, (quotation omitted).

See State v. Geller , (requiring appellate courts to independently review record to determine the sufficiency of the district court ’s reasons for departure) .

6 “[A]bsent a statement of the reasons for the sentencing departure pl aced on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.” d 514, 517 (Minn. 2003) (holding that because the district court did not state reasons for departure on the record at the time of sentencing, it was not allowed to provide reasons for the departure on remand, and instead, was required to impose the presumptive guidelines sentence).

Appellant cites State v. Geller, which held that “absent a statement of the reasons for the sentencing departure placed on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.” ().

See State v. Geller , (quotation omitted) (stating that when “the reasons given [for a departure] are improper or inadequate and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure, the departure will be reversed”).

(reasserting that if “reasons are improper or inadequate and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure, the departure will be reversed”).

(requiring independent appellate review of the district court record to determine the sufficiency of the district court’s reasons for departure).

The reasons for a sentencing departure must be “placed on the record at the time of sentencing.”

The state’s reliance on Garrett is misplaced because in State v. Geller , the Minnesota Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule it announced in Williams, stating , “[N]o departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence is permitted absent a statement of the reasons for a sentencing departure placed on the record by the court at the time of sentencing.” -15 (Minn. 2003).

“[A]bsent a statement of the reasons for the sentencing departure placed on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.”

2)); (reversing a district court’s depa rture for failure to “ state the reasons for departure on the record at the time of sentencing”).

“[A]bsent a statem ent of the reasons for the sent encing departure placed on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure w ill be allowed.” (holding that the court of appeals erred in remanding to allow the district court to state its reasons for departure after sentencing, and that the presumptive sentence must be imposed).

The Dangerous-Offender Sentence “We review a sentencing court’s departure from the sentencing guidelines for [an] abuse of discretion.”

(Minn. 3 As stated above, a range of offense dates is listed in the complaint.

-91 (Minn. App. 2012) (reversing aggravated sentence when district court did not articulate a substantial and compelling reason to justify sentencing departure because it did not consider sentence to be a departure from guidelines).