Cited by

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

355 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Duncan Nyanaro Osoro Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(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”).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Kent Pioro Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Derek Steven Serbus Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Lee Tonnessen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lidio Roque Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
State of Minnesota v. Blake Scott Veen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jaren Joseph Dodds Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Tywan George Christopher Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Pegel , -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).
Nikita Nikel Dixon v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-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.”).
State of Minnesota v. Deontranelle Leslie Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
State of Minnesota v. Michele Anne Reimann Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Ihar Daniliuk Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Rex Christopher Kersey Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
State of Minnesota v. Angel Gabriel Aviles Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But if a defendant requests a departure, the district court must “exercise [its] discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Bobbie Christine Bishop Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
State of Minnesota v. Pierce Gerald Heston Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Earl Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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.
State of Minnesota v. Xueyan Wang Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Andre Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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.
State of Minnesota v. Reginald Fenion Coe Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
State of Minnesota v. Damien Damonte Carey Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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 of Minnesota v. David Scott Bothe Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Ronny Ray Oleson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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
State of Minnesota v. Casey Jo Eggum Minn. Ct. App. 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 3 testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).
James Eugene Love v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Antoinette Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Alex Bernard Cuffy Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
State of Minnesota v. Eugene Foster Cole Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Nicholas Adam Willard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Wheth er to depart from the sentencing guidelines rests within the district court’s discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Manuel Valdez Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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 .
State of Minnesota v. John Oliver Dybedahl Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Roy Luckhardt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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).
State of Minnesota v. Alize Khudari Perkins Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Levar Randolph Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Anike Tatiaramika Jiles Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Eduardo Delariva-Larios Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 251, 253 (Minn. App. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Eithan Armani Green Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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
State of Minnesota v. Travis James Fritz Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Alonzo Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey George Ackerson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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).
State of Minnesota v. Josi Ann Adelman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Cory Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allen Pryatel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Frank Herron Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jairo Manuel Medina-Acosta Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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 of Minnesota v. Chad Joseph Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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 of Minnesota v. Justin Matthew Girling Minn. Ct. App. 2020
.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Utto Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Trent Theodore Horning Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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).