Cited by

We will reverse the imposition of a presumptive sentence “[o]nly in a rare case.”

“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).

impose a shorter term than the presumptive term”); (only in a “rare case” will a reviewing court reverse the imposition of a presumptive sentence).

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

d 251, 254 (Minn. App. 2011).

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).

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).

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).

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

does not obligate the 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).

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

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).

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).

“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).

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

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.”

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.”

() (reasoning there is no requirement for a district court to discuss all the Trog factors before imposing a sentence).

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).

(holding that the district court need not discuss every Trog factor when declining to depart).

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,”

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).

(stating that this court will not reverse the district court’s denial of a departure request when the record shows that the district court “carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination”).

-54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation 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.” State v. Pegel , d 251, 255 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).

-54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).

State v. Pegel , -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).