Cited by

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

355 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Gavin Patrick Meany Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Dennis John Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Dennis John Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020)
State of Minnesota v. Gavin Patrick Meany Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Johnson, d at 925; Van Ruler, d at 80.
State of Minnesota v. Eric Alan Gramentz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Eric Alan Gramentz Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Tarik Toyshawn Smith-Whitmore Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Tarik Toyshawn Smith-Whitmore Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020)
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Anthony Sollitto Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Wade Scott Reinhard Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We will reverse the imposition of a presumptive sentence “[o]nly in a rare case.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas David Fogel Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“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.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Eric Vines Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Eric Vines Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Keith Alan Powelson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Keith Alan Powelson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
impose a shorter term than the presumptive term”); (only in a “rare case” will a reviewing court reverse the imposition of a presumptive sentence).
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Ann Kong Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Larry Ray House Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Larry Ray House Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Only in a rare case will a reviewing court reverse the imposition of a presumptive sentence.”
State of Minnesota v. Luis Alejandro Esteban Esquivel Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Catherine Ann Skavlem-Short Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Luis Alejandro Esteban Esquivel Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Catherine Ann Skavlem-Short Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Michael Knoll Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Calvin Edward Bartz Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Mark Allen Lacek Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 251, 254 (Minn. App. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock Minn. Ct. App. 2023
When a district court imposes a presumptive sentence, an appellate court “may not interfere with the [district court’s] exercise of discretion, 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 v. Collin Charles Koerner Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We generally will not interfere with a 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 v. Robert Allen Mrozek Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Ramon Cantu Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Even when grounds for downward departure exist, the presence of such grounds “ does not obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” - 54 (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kelsey Anne Weidell Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Only in a “rare case” will an appellate court “reverse the imposition of a presumptive sentence.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Todd Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Dean Robert Hoversten v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Paul Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
does not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Alejandro Mejia-Bonilla Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“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 v. Julian Leon Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“ The district court must order the presumptive sentence provided in the sentencing guidelines unless substantial and compelling circumstances warrant a departure.”
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Virnig Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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 v. Angela Marie Edge Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Lee Griffith Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Herman Wheeler Minn. Ct. App. 2023
When a district court imposes a presumptive sentence, an appellate court “may not interfere with the [district] court’s exercise of discretion, 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 v. Tashawn Antionette Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The district court must order the presu mptive sentence provided in the sentencing guidelines unless substantial and compelling circumstances warrant a 3 departure.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jared Devlin Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The district court must order the presumptive sentence provided in the sentencing guidelines unless substantial and compelling circumstances warrant a departure.” (quotation omitted).
Donna Mae Bastyr v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
As noted above, we apply an abuse -of-discretion standard of review and “[o]nly in a rare case will a reviewing court reverse the imposition of a presumptive sentence.”
Xanth Tyler Wilkins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
onviction relief because it determined that when a district court “declines to depart dispositionally downward, it is not required to provide [a Trog-factor] analysis.” The district court relied on State v. Pegel, in which this court reviewed a sentencing decision that, as here, reflected “the district court did not discuss all of the Trog factors before it imposed the presumptive sentence.”
State of Minnesota v. Jason Michael Slattum Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Rolando Banda Minn. Ct. App. 2022
() (reasoning there is no requirement for a district court to discuss all the Trog factors before imposing a sentence).
State of Minnesota v. Fahid Nazir Minn. Ct. App. 2022
This court “may not interfere with the [district] court’s exercise of discretion, 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 v. William Clyde Grunwald Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(holding that the district court need not discuss every Trog factor when declining to depart).
State of Minnesota v. Tanisha Amiea Dunn Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Because the district court “is in the best position to evaluate the offender’s conduct and weigh sentencing options,” (quotation omitted), we generally will not interfere with a sentencing decision so long as the record shows that the district court “carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented,”
State of Minnesota v. Donald Raymond Guse Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Lejuan Walter Hyde Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We “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).