Cited by

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

233 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(alteration in original), 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
review denied (Minn. May 20, 1985); (“[T]he district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sent ence.”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Johnson , (M inn.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence,” and we will affirm a presumptive “sentence when the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a 6 determination.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
e view a district court’s refusal to grant a dispositional departure from the sentencing guidelines for an abuse of discretion, and we w ill affirm the imposition of a sentence “when the record show s that the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” State v. Johnson , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Substantial and compelling circumstances are those which make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” (Mi nn.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Substantial and compelling circumstances are those which make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” (quotations and citation omitted) , 10 review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We will affirm the imposition of a presumptive sentence when “the record shows that the 3 sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and informati on presented before making a determination.” State v. Johnson , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(describing a computer hard drive as “effectively a ‘container’ of [the sought] data”), review den ied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We will affirm the imposition of a presumptive 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 (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that “[w]e wi ll 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” refusing to depart), review denied (Minn. 9 Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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 presen ted before making a determination.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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.” State v. J ohnson, (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Moreover, we will affirm a presumptive sentence “when the record shows that the sentencing court carefully e valuated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” State v. Johnson , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Chris Harry McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chris Harry McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2017
When the record contains evidence of factors supporting departure, which could have been, but were not, considered by the district court, we may remand for consideration of those factors.” -26 (Minn. App. 2013) (emphasis added) (quotation omitted), review denied, (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Chaz Jacobi Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chaz Jacobi Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We will affirm the imposition of a presumptive sentence “when the record shows [that] the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Vaughn Diamond 890 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Vaughn Diamond 890 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“A ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment occurs upon an official’s invasion of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.” (citing Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 114, 104 S. Ct. at 1656)), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Scott Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Scott Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
a district court’s refusal to grant a dispositional departure from the sentencing guidelines for an abuse of discretion, and we will affirm the imposition of a presumptive sentence “when the record shows that the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Dimitri Devonte Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dimitri Devonte Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
While a “district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence,” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
14 (Minn. 2006); review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Tetyang Puok Juate-Yout Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tetyang Puok Juate-Yout Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Corey Michael Kokette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Michael Kokette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Moreover, this court will affirm a presumptive sentence “when the record shows that the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” d 917, 925 (Minn. App. 2013) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Donald Beulah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Donald Beulah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Donald Kalib John Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Kalib John Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
a district court’s refusal to grant a dispositional departure from the sentencing guidelines for an abuse of discretion, and we will affirm the imposition of a presumptive sentence “when the record shows that the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination,” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Brian Scott Schmitz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur Barnes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Davie Eugene McCoy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Davie Eugene McCoy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur Barnes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
925 (Minn. App. 2013), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Brian Scott Schmitz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We will affirm a presumptive 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 (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nielsen may not be satisfied with the district court’s reasons for denying his request for a durational departure, but “the district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
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
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.