Cited by

“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).

“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).

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).

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).

-54 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating presence of mitigating factor does not obligate district court to place defendant on probation or impose term shorter than presumptive term).

-54 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that presence of mitigating factor does not obligate the court to depart from guidelines and place defendant on probation or impose term shorter than presumptive term).

“The district court must order the presumptive sentence provided in the sentencing guidelines unless substantial and compelling circumstances warrant a departure.” State v. 11 Pegel, (quotation omitted).

But “[o]nly in a rare case will a reviewing court reverse the imposition of a presumptive sentence.” State v. Pegel

“The district court must order the presumptive sentence provided in the sentencing guidelines unless ‘substantial and compelling circumstances’ warrant a departure.” (d 486, 487 (Minn. App. 1985), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (Supp. 2021).

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 pre sented before making a 7 determination.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).

The abuse-of-discretion standard gives the district court broad discretion in its sentencing decisions and we will “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).

We will affirm a presumptive sentence if the record establishes that “the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” State v. Pegel, 8 (quotation omitted).

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

“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.”

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D (2020)

This court will affirm the denial of a departure motion “as long as the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).

We will affirm a presumptive sentence if the record establishes that “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.”

“But the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does not 4 obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).

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

(“The court erred in putting aside arguments for departure rather than considering them alongside ‘valid reasons’ for non-departure.”); (“When the record demonstrates that an exercise of discretion has not occurred, the case must be remanded for a hearing on sentencing and for consideration of the departure issue.”).

But a district court need not depart from the presumptive sentence based on “the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case.”

“Whether to depart from sentencing guidelines rests within the district court’s discretion, and the district court will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.”

“If the district co urt has discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence, it must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” State v. Pegel , (noting that the record had suggested factors for departure that the district court should deliberately consider).

Although the district court did not explicitly address the Trog factors here, “an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” see also State v. Pegel , d 251, 254 (Minn. App. 2011) ( providing that a district court is not required to discuss each Trog factor before imposing a sentence).

We will affirm the denial of a departure motion “as long as the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” State v. Pegel , 55 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (Supp. 2017)

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2022)

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020)