Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251.

347 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    29, 1996); -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that the presence of a mitigating factor “does not obligate the [district] court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term”) (quotation omitted)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    “A reviewing court may not interfere with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion, as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota v. Misti Dawn Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    A district court is required only to “exercise [its] discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    This court will not interfere with a district court’s sentencing decision “as long as the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    Appellate courts “will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.” (quotation omitted); (“Only in a rare case will a reviewing court reverse the imposition of a presumptive sentence.”).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    We also “ may not interfer e with the [district] court’s exercise of discretion, as long as the record shows the [district] court 8 carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • Luke Joshua Cain, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    “If the district court has discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence, it must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    “The district court must order the presumptive sentence provided in the sentencing guidelines unless substantial and compelling circumstances warrant a departure.” (quotation omitted); accord Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D (2022) (stating that a court has discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence only when substantial and compelling circumstances are present).
  • State of Minnesota v. Roger Lee Voss, III Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • State of Minnesota v. Roger Lee Voss, III Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    Accordingly, we will not interfere with a district court’s decision to impose the presumptive sentence “as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    “But 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.” -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota v. Dayonne Marquis Lachapelle Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • State of Minnesota v. Dayonne Marquis Lachapelle Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    Accordingly, we will not interfere with a district court’s decision to impose the presumptive sentence “as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    “A reviewing court may not interfere with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion, as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota v. Irineo Ricardo-Cosme Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • State of Minnesota v. Irineo Ricardo-Cosme Minn. Ct. App. 2026
    “[T]he mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does not obligate the [district] court to place [a] defendant on probation.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota v. Tyler James Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota v. Tyler James Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    The district court “must order the presumptive sentence provided in the sentencing guidelines unless substantial and compelling circumstances warrant a departure.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    “A reviewing court may not interfere with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion, as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    “Only in a rare case will a reviewing court reverse the imposition of a presumptive sentence.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    And a district court does not abuse its discretion when it “carefully consider[s] circumstances for and against departure and deliberately exercise[s] its discretion.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Lee Daniel Kruger Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota v. Lee Daniel Kruger Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jermaine Louis Fleming, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jermaine Louis Fleming, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    “Whether to depart from the sentencing guidelines rests within the district court’s discretion, and the district court will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    (“A reviewing court may not interfere with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion, as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    The district court “must order the presumptive sentence provided in the sentencing guidelines unless substantial and compelling circumstances warrant a departure.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
  • State of Minnesota v. Isaac Gutierrez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota v. Isaac Gutierrez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that “the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does not obligate the court to place [the] defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term” (quotation omitted)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    We will not rever se the district court’ s refusal to depart “as long as the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the 5 testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    And a district court does not abuse its discretion when it “carefully consider[s] circumstances for and against departure and deliberately exercise[s] its discretion.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    “But the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” –54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    “A reviewing court may not interfere with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion, as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    We will affirm a district court’s decision to impose a presumptive sentence if “the record shows [that] the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation 7 omitted).
  • State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    We will not reverse the district court’s refusal to depart “as long as the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025