Cited by

We will affirm a district court’s exercise of discretion, as long as the record shows 7 that the district court “carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).

We will not reverse a 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.” 7 (quotation omitted).

“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) ().

Appellate courts will affirm a “[district] court’s exercise of discretion, as long as the record shows [that] the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).

When denying a dispositional departure, the district court need not discuss every Trog factor, d 251, 254 (Minn. App. 2011), or explain its reasoning for the denial on the record, Johnson, d at 926.

“But the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case 7 does not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation[.]” (quotation omitted); (“[W]hen substantial and compelling circumstances are present, the judge may depart.” (quotation omitted) (emphasis added)).

“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).

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)).

“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).

A district court is required only to “exercise [its] discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.”

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).

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.”).

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).

“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).

“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).

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).

“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).

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).

“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).

“[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).

The district court “must order the presumptive sentence provided in the sentencing guidelines unless substantial and compelling circumstances warrant a departure.” (quotation omitted).

“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).

“Only in a rare case will a reviewing court reverse the imposition of a presumptive sentence.”

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.”

“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.”

(“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)).

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.

-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)).

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).

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.”