Court Opinion

ID: 9724730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:11:01.143723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:05.313994
License: Public Domain

HUSPENI, Judge
(concurring specially).
In State v. Esparza, 367 N.W.2d 619 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), a rare instance in which this court has reversed a downward durational departure, we observed:
In determining that this matter must be reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing, we do not foreclose the sentencing court from considering other mitigating factors which may have been present. * * * We do not restrict the trial court’s discretion, upon remand, to impose the appropriate guidelines sentence or to reconsider a downward departure based upon any relevant factor contained in the guidelines.
Id. at 621.
While I agree with the majority that the current state of the record does not demonstrate mitigating factors which support a downward durational departure, I would not require the trial court upon remand to impose the guidelines sentence. Instead, I would permit the continued exercise of judicial discretion pursuant to Esparza.