Cited by

-54 (Minn. App. 2011) (“[t]he mere fa ct 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 presum ptive term.”).

When the district court imposes a presumptive sentence, appellate courts will not interfere “as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented 4 before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Jackson , (stating that if a jury finds facts supporting a departure, a district court may, but is not required to, depart); (affirming denial of a request for departure despite defendant’ s argument that Trog factors were present); -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that the mere existence of mitigating factors does not require the district court to place a defendant on probation).

But if a defendant requests a departure, the district court must “exercise [its] discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” (quotation omitted).

See State v. Pegel , -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that the “mere fact that a mitigating factor is present” does not require the district court to depart).

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.” State v. Pegel , -54 (M inn.

When the district court imposes a presumptive sentence, appellate courts will not interfere “as long as the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).

And 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 , (Mi nn.

When the district court imposes a sentence within the presumptive guidelines range, as is the case here, we generally will not interfere “as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).

5 If the defendant requests a departure, the district court must “exercise [its] discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against depart ure.” (quo tation omitted).

State v. Pegel , -55 (Minn. App. 2011); (“ We will affirm the imposition of a presum ptive guidelines sentence when the record shows that the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotatio

We will not reverse the district court’s refusal to depart “as long as the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the 3 testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).

When the district court follows the presumptive guidelines disposition, we generally will not interfere “as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).

“Wheth er to depart from the sentencing guidelines rests within the district court’s discretion.”

Further, even if the record did support a finding that Valdez is particularly amenable to probation, “the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does ‘not obligate the court to place defend ant on probation or impose a shorter t erm than the presumptive term.’” -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (); -65 (Minn .

We will not reverse 5 the district court ’s refusal to depart “as long as the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presente d before making a determination.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).

d 251, 253 (Minn. App. 2011).

“Whether to depart from the sentencing guid elines rests within the district court’s discretion, and the district court will not be re versed absent an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Pegel

When the district court imposes a presumptive sentence, we generally will not interfere “as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and informatio n presented before making a determination.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).

When the district court imposes a sentence within the presumptive guidelines range, we generally will not interfere “as long as the record shows th e sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information pr esented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).

When the district court imposes a presumptive sentence, appellate courts will not interfere “as long as the record shows the sentencing cour t carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).

When the district court imposes a presumptiv e sentence, this court will not interfere “as long as the record shows th e sentencing court carefully ev aluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Olson , see also State v. Pegel , (“[T]he mere fact that a mitigat ing factor is present in a particular case does not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation .

.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).

And while there are factors that may have weighed in favor of a departure, “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.” -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).

Guidelines 2.D.1 (2017); -24 (Minn. 2016) (discu ssing circumstances to justify a durational departure); (Mi nn.

This court will not interfere with the district court’s exercise of discretion, “as long as the record shows t he sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).

We will not interfere with a district court’s decision to impose the presumptive guidelines sentence “as long as the record shows th e sentencing court carefully ev aluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).

-65 (Minn. App. 2009); -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that the existence of a mitigating factor does not obligate the district court to depart).