Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 831 N.W.2d 917.

233 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“We will affirm the imposition of a presumptive guidelines sentence when the record shows [that] the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (alteration in original), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We will affirm the decision not to depart and the imposition of a presumptive guidelines sentence when “the record shows that the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A “ district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a 6 presumptive sentence.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“We will affirm the imposition of a presumptive guidelines sentence when the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Johnson , (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- 26 (Minn. App. 2013) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“We will affirm the imposition of a presumptive guideline s sentence when the record shows that the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted ), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Lannon Lavar Burdunice, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
And be cause a district court need not explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence, State v. Johnson , we similarly see no merit in Burdunice’s contenti on that the district court abused its discretion by ignoring arguments he made at sentencing.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
4 making a determination.” State v. Johnson , (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In sum, “[w]e will affirm the imposition of a presumptive guidelines sentence when the record shows that the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sep t. 17, 2013).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(explaining no abuse of discretion generally occurs when the district court carefully considers informati on in the record befo re imposing a guideline sentence), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Generally, a district court “ is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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.” (quotation omitted)), review denied 7 (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Johnson , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Kangbateh, d at 14; Kindem, d at 7 ; d 917, 925 (Minn. App. 2013), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
And we will affirm the imposition of a presumptive sentence when, as here, “ the record shows that the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We will affirm the imposition of a presumptive guidelines sentence when ‘the 5 record shows [that] the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.’” State v. Johnson , d 917, 925 (Minn. App. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Van Ruler , ), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State 15 v. Johnson , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Johnson , (stating that the sentencing court does not abuse its discretion so long as it considers all the evidence presented before imposing a sentence) review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Even if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, a district court need not depart, -65 (Minn. App. 2009), and it need not provide reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence, State v. Johnson , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Johnson , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
information presented before making a determination.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985); (stating we will generally affirm presumptive sentence when the record shows that district court evaluated the circumstances), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Johnson , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We will affirm the imposition of a presumptive guidelines sentence when ‘the record shows [that] the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.’” (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Van Ruler , ), review 7 denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When a district court sentences within the presumptive range, it is not required to “ explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence.” State v. Johnson , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
osing a presumptive sentence so long as it considers the proposed reasons for departure, and we may not interfere wit h the district court ’s exercise of discretion so long as “the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” State v. Van Ruler , d 77, 80-81 (Minn. App. 1985); (“[T]he district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence.”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Johnson , review denied ( M i n n .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A district court must impose the presumptive guidelines sentence absent identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances justify ing departure.” State v. 4 Johnson, (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And a “district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A “search” occurs “upon an official’s invasion of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.” review denied (Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
’” (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Van Ruler , ).