Cited by

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

355 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Anthony Hebert Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Morgan Lee Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Morgan Lee Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(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)).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Anthony Hebert Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[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).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
at 307-08 (quotation omitted), this court may interfere with the district court’s decision if it failed to “carefully evaluate[] all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.”
State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–55 (Minn. App. 2011) (holding that the district court properly exercised its discretion by not departing where the record showed that it considered all circumstances).
State of Minnesota v. John Jay Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Michael Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Jay Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The 9 district court should “carefully evaluate[] all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Adam Michael Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-55 (Minn. App. 2011) (holding that the district court properly exercised its discretion by not departing where the record showed that it considered all circumstances).
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(rejecting appellant’s argument that the district court failed to discuss all of the Trog factors and observing that “there is no requirement that the district court must do so”).
State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
and exercised its discretion.” –81 (Minn. App. 1985) (stating that the district court is not required to give reasons when it elects to impose a presumptive sentence).
State of Minnesota v. Jack Arnold Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jack Arnold Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that, if district court considers reasons to depart but elects to impose the presumptive sentence, no explanation for denying departure is required).
State of Minnesota v. Misty Dawn Dyrdahl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Misty Dawn Dyrdahl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The district court must order the presumptive sentence provided in the sentencing guidelines unless substantial and compelling circumstances warrant a departure.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Holly Ann Eaton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Holly Ann Eaton Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hope Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hope Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quotation omitted); see State v. Witucki, 420 (“An appellate court will not generally review the trial court’s exercise of its discretion in cases where the sentence imposed is within the presumptive range.”)
State of Minnesota v. Robert Richard Doble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert Richard Doble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When a district court imposes a presumptive sentence, 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).
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Leone Revello Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Leone Revello Minn. Ct. App. 2015
and exercised its discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Anthony Engebretson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Anthony Engebretson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When a district court imposes a presumptive sentence, 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); (“If 7 the district court has discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence, it must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and a
State of Minnesota v. Luke Mathias Erkkila Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Luke Mathias Erkkila Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When a district court imposes a presumptive sentence, 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); (“If the district court has discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence, it must exercise 3 In fact, Erkkila’s brief notes that since he “arrived at MCF – St.
State of Minnesota v. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[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).
State of Minnesota v. Basil Benna Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Basil Benna Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
4 (rejecting appellant’s argument that the district court failed to discuss all of the Trog factors and observing that “there is no requirement that the district court must do so”)
State of Minnesota v. Gary Richard Wessman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gary Richard Wessman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Wessman is correct that the district court must consider factors that may justify a departure, but he wrongly implies that it must discuss every factor on the record before imposing a presumptive sentence
State of Minnesota v. Tyrece Curtis Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tyrece Curtis Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But a district court need not discuss all the Trog factors, and the mere fact that a “mitigating factor is present .
State of Minnesota v. Kanishka Shereal Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kanishka Shereal Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The district court must order the presumptive sentence provided in the sentencing guidelines unless substantial and compelling circumstances warrant a departure.”
State of Minnesota v. Lashun Theodits Witherspoon Minn. Ct. App. 2014