Cited by

motion for [sentencing] departure was not even considered by the court and rested in part on an insufficient and biased psycho -sexual evaluation.” This 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.” (quotation omitted).

The district court must impose a presumptive sentence under the guide lines “unless substantial and compelling circumstances warrant a departure.” State v. Pegel , (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Sent.

“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.” (quotation omitted).

And 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.”

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

(stating that there is “no requirement” that the district court consider each Trog factor, provided that the court “deliberately considered circumstances for and against departure and exercised its discretion”).

Appellate courts will not reverse a sentencing decision “as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).

he circumstances for and against departure because it apparently believed “that the jury’s verdict and resolution of the evidence as to guilt precluded any exercise of its discretion at sentencing.” “If the district court has discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence, it must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” (quotation omitted).

(noting that if a district court considers the reasons for departure but chooses not to depart, an explanation is not required)

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

5 guidelines unless substantial and compelling circumstances warrant a departure.” (quotation omitted).

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

“[A]s long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination,” an appellate court “may not interfere with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion.” (quotation omitted).

This court will not “interfere with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion, as long as the record shows [it] carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented.” (quotation omitted).

“[T]he 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.” –54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).

does not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation.” (quotation omitted).

does not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation.” (quotation omitted).

This court will not “interfere with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion, as long as the record shows [it] carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that this 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.” (quotation omitted)).

“[A]s long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination,” this court will “not interfere with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion.” d 251, 255 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted).