Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Olson, 765 N.W.2d 662.

145 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Levar Randolph Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Aldray Devon Young Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Christy Lynn Tjaden Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Olson , -65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.”).
State of Minnesota v. Nyla Tomeka Murrell-French Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Olson , -65 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Johnny Clifton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Frank Herron Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Even if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, a district court need not depart, -65 (Minn. App. 2009), and it need not provide reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence, State v. Johnson , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Jamahl Lorenzo Climmons Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(holding the district court’s decision to impose presumptive sentence was not an abuse of discretion even when “[t]here [was] evidence in the record that appellant was amenable to probation”).
State of Minnesota v. Chad Joseph Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Olson , see also State v. Pegel , (“[T]he mere fact that a mitigat ing factor is present in a particular case does not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation .
State of Minnesota v. Justin Matthew Girling Minn. Ct. App. 2020
However, a district court is not required to depart “from a presumptively executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation.” State v. Olson
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Utto Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Karla Jean Winterfeld Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.” -65 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Danell Dunston Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But a district court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to depart “from a presumptively executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Darrell Wayne Brownbull, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
[the court] is not required to do so.” State v. Olson , -65 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Armando Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-65 (Minn. App. 2009); -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that the existence of a mitigating factor does not obligate the district court to depart).
State of Minnesota v. Myron Lynn Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2019
However, a district court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to depart “from a presumptively executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Ali Joshua Jalil Robida Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Daniel Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2019
[ it] is not required to do so.” -65 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Rudolf Vadner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court is not required to depart “from a presumptivel y executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Ramiro Alejandro Pena Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court is not required to depart “from a presumptively executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that t he defendant would be amenable to probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Thomas Cobb Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.”).
State of Minnesota v. Meng Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2019
14 Those mitigating circumstances must be “substantial and compell ing,” meaning that they make “the facts of a particular case different from a typical c ase.” State v. Olson , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Johnson Bankole Oluwalowo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court, however, is not required to depart “from a presumptively executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott David Quall Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court is not required to depart “from a presumptively executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Steven Wayne Culver Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.”); see also State v. Pegel , 795 N.W.
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But a district court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to depart “from a presumptively executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Abdurahman Abdella Mama Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.”).
State of Minnesota v. Eli Jermel Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
664-65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a def endant is particularly amen able to probation, but is not required to do so.”).
State of Minnesota v. Cyrus Noel Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Indeed, t his court has repeatedly stated that “a defendant is not entitled to a reduction in his sentence merely because a codefendant received a lesser sentence.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. John Thomas Owen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“ Only in a rare case will a reviewing court reverse a district court’s imposition of the presumptive sentence.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Gosch Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositiona l departure if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.”).
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Michael Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
t a finding that Anderson is particularly amenable to probation, “the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does ‘not obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.’” State v. Pegel , -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quoting State v. Wall , ); see also State v. Olson , -65 (Minn. App. 20 09) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is particularly amenable to probat
State of Minnesota v. Pakaykeo Phetsomphou Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Olson , -65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward di spositional departure if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.”).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Emmanuel Ballard Minn. Ct. App. 2017
rt a finding that appellant is particularly amenable to probation, “the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does ‘not obligate the court to place de fendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.’” -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (); -65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defe ndant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.”); State v. Evenson , (“Ev
Leanne Starr v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lynette Marie Robbins Minn. Ct. App. 2017
15 “Only in a rare case will a reviewing court reverse a district court’s imposition of [a] presumptive sentence.” State v. Olson , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 662, 664–65 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–65 (Minn. App. 2009) (holding that a district court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to depart “from a presumptively executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation”).
State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb Minn. Ct. App. 2014
–65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.”).
State of Minnesota v. Tawnja Rene Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tawnja Rene Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The district court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to dispositionally depart from a presumptively executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation.”
Wells v. State 839 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Wells v. State 839 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(stating that a district court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to depart “from a presumptively executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation”).