Court Opinion

ID: 9577740
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:37:32.561452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:09.842927
License: Public Domain

Andersen, J.
(concurring) — I fully concur with the majority opinion authored by Justice Durham, and the conclusion that there is no statutory or other compelling reason to adopt Minnesota's arbitrary "doubling rule". In fairness to the concurring/dissenting opinion, however, it seems obvious to me that, as a practical matter, an exceptional sentence of no more than twice the length of the presumptive sentence will on appellate review be less likely *539to be held to constitute an abuse of discretion than one which probes the outermost limits of the statutory maximum. The egregious facts of this case amply justify the sentence imposed herein. There was no abuse of discretion; the sentence was not "clearly excessive."
Brachtenbach, J., concurs with Andersen, J.