imposed were permissive under the sentencing guidelines or whether they constitute an upward departure. This issue requires interpretation of the sentencing guidelines, which is a question of law subject to de novo review. State v. Watkins, 650 N.W.2d 738, 741 (Minn.App.2002). If a defendant is convicted of multiple cu ilable, “the use of consecutive sentences ... constitutes a departure from the guidelines and requires written reasons” to support the departure. Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F. Although the sentencing guidelines do not define what constitutes a “crime against a person,” caselaw makes clear that such a determination depends on the nature of the underlying conduct rather than the nomenclature used to classify the crime. See State v. Myers, 627 N.W.2d 58, 62-63 (Minn.2001) (<HOLDING>); State v. Notch, 446 N.W.2d 383, 385
holding that when prior felony sentence for crime against person has not been discharged and imprisonment is presumptive for current felony sentence permissive consecutive sentencing is available holding that theft from the person is not a crime of violence holding that burglary may qualify as offense against person if as committed it is in fact a crime against a person holding that a defendant more likely committed multiple acts if the defendants conduct in committing the lesser crime caused the victim to suffer an additional risk of harm beyond that inherent in the ultimate crime holding that consecutive sentence for obstructing legal process is crime against person if underlying conduct in committing crime posed special danger to human life