Cited by

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

355 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Karla Jean Winterfeld Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota (A18-1999) (A18-1957,) v. Torrance Lee Royster (A18-1957) (A18-1999) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Guidelines 2.D.1 (2017); -24 (Minn. 2016) (discu ssing circumstances to justify a durational departure); (Mi nn.
State of Minnesota v. Richard Danell Dunston Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Varlyn Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Damon Dwight Wiederhoft Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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).
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Armando Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-65 (Minn. App. 2009); -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (stating that the existence of a mitigating factor does not obligate the district court to depart).
State of Minnesota v. Myron Lynn Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Shawn James McEachern Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The mere presence of a mitigating factor i n a case “does not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Alan Bunnell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
.” State v. Pegel , (Mi nn.
State of Minnesota v. Ramiro Alejandro Pena Minn. Ct. App. 2019
4 obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Thomas Cobb Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” State v. Pegel , -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Scott David Auginaush Minn. Ct. App. 2019
does not obligate the court to place defendant on probation.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Johnson Bankole Oluwalowo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
If “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.”
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Pegel , , 254 (Minn. App. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Scott David Quall Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But “the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does not obligate the court to place defendant on probation.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Zong Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 251, 255 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Victor Mouchka Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Finally, “the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does not obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter ter m than the presumptive term.” –54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Wayne Culver Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.”); see also State v. Pegel , -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (determining that a district court need not depart in every case where a mitigating factor is present).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jon Schluessler Minn. Ct. App. 2019
.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Zackery Charles Nathan Mills Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- 54 (Minn. App. 2011) ().
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Merrill Newlun Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We will not interfere with the district court’s exercise of discretion, “as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and info rmation presented before making a determination.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Scott Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Arcelus Antonio Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“But the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does not ob ligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” –54 (Minn. App. 2011) ( quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Melanie Ann Quick Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(quotation omitted); (“An appellate court will not generally review the [district] court’s exercise of its discretion in cases where the sentence imposed is within the presumptive range.” (quotation omitted)), review denied (M
State of Minnesota v. Tracy Lynn Bailey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
does not obligate the court to place defendant on probation.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. William Issac Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Peter Gribovsky Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Pegel , d 251, 255 (Minn. App. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Rick William Olsen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But “the mere fact that a mitigating factor i s present in a particular case does not obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” –54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted); see also Kindem, d at 7 (“[T]he Guidelines state that when substantial and compelling circumstances are present, the judge may depart.
State of Minnesota v. Abdurahman Abdella Mama Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Gosch Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, vs Phillip Julius Butenhoff, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
does not obligate the court to place defendant on 5 probation.” State v. Pegel , -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Michael Easter Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Pegel , -54 (Minn. App. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Michael Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
5 Further, even if the record did support a finding that Anderson 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 defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.’” State v. Pegel , -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quoting State v. Wall , ); see also State v. Olson , -65 (Minn. App. 20 09) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defe
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Adkins Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Brock Dupree Lam Seawright Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 251, 253-54 (Minn. App. 2011) ().
State of Minnesota v. Adam Ryan Lagred Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A district court abuses its discretion when it does not “deliberately consider[] circumstances for and against departure.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Boe Michael Tankersley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Ranzy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Alex Gordon Sillerud Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Erik Paul Ellingson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Carl Remley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A district court may abuse its discretion when it does not “deliberately consider[] circumstances for and against departure,” or when a sentence is “inconsistent with statutory requirements, unreasonable, 8 inappropriate, excessive, unjustifiably disparate, or not warranted by the findings of fact issued by the district court.” Minn. Stat. § 244.11, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Dominique Dreshaun Malone Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(internal quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Dante Vaughn Minn. Ct. App. 2018
- 54 (Minn. App. 2011) ().
State of Minnesota v. Damion Aharon Vasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Other provisions of the DSRA went into effect in May 2016, but those provisions had to do with sentencing guideline ranges and not the classification of offenses.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Brian Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To avoid abusing its discretion in departing from a presumptive sentence, the district court “must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” State v. Pegel , (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo Ramirez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Yusef Abdi Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A district court may abuse its discretion when it does not “deliberately consider[] circumstances for and against departure,” or when a sentence is “inconsistent with statutory requirements, unreasonable, inappropriate, excessive, unjustifiably disparate, or not warranted by the findings of fact issued by the district court,” Minn. Stat. § 244.11, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Emmanuel Ballard Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Even if the record di d support a finding that appellant 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 de fendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.’” -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (); -65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defe ndant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to d