an upward departure from the sentencing guidelines. Permissive consecutive sentencing, however, is available only under the limited circumstances listed in Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F. The state’s argument fails to consider the plain language of the sentencing guidelines, which states: “The use of consecutive sentences in any other case constitutes a departure from the guidelines!)]” Thus, the imposition of consecutive sentences for reasons other than those set forth in Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F. constitutes a departure from the sentencing guidelines and requires the existence of substantial and compelling reasons identified on the record by the district court, notwithstanding the parties’ plea agreement for consecutive sentencing. See State v. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65, 71 (2002) (<HOLDING>); see also Minn.Stat. § 244.09, subd. 5(2)
holding a sentence is not based on the guidelines unless the plea agreement itself expressly uses a guidelines sentencing range to establish the term of imprisonment holding that negotiated plea agreements that include a sentencing departure are justified under the guidelines in cases where substantial and compelling circumstances exist but a plea agreement standing alone  does not create such circumstances in its own right holding that term any sentence within plea agreements waiver of right to appeal provision did not include restitution because of ambiguity holding that the rules of contract law are applicable to plea agreements holding under similar circumstances that defendants failure to assert statute of limitations prior to entering a negotiated plea constituted a waiver