Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wells v. State, 839 N.W.2d 775.

53 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. James Tyrone Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Vontrez Trevon Phelps Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 775, 781 (Minn. App. 2013), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Juan Antonio Soto, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(stating that district court always has discretion to impose a presumptive sentence), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Lee Daniel Kruger Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Lee Daniel Kruger Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(stating that district court has discretion to impose presumptive sentence when Trog factors supporting a probationary sentence are present), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. David Choe Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gene Hoberg Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Van Ruler, d at 80; (stating that district court always has discretion to impose a presumptive sentence), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Joseph Kenda Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[T]he presence of mitigating factors does not obligate the court to place a defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Lindsey Rose Schneeberger Minn. Ct. App. 2025
pain to a perfectly innocent victim, justice demands the punishment of a prison sentence as proper retribution for the enormity of the offense.” While Schneeberger may have demonstrated the existence of several Trog factors, “the presence of mitigating factors does not obligate the court to place a defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Demetreious Anderson Baldwin v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Stefan Scott Tucker Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Abdirashid Ahmed Hassan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Abdirashid Ahmed Hassan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jamez Antoine Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Pegel , d at 253-54; rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Nathan James Severtson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Kris Christensen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Kris Christensen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating that a district court always has discretion to impose a presumptive sentence), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Keonta Germaine Wickliffe Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Wells v. State , rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Lee Murray Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating that a district court always has 2 The district court noted that it was not assigned the co-defendant’s matter and the co - defendant’s sentence was unknown.
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Anthony Sollitto Minn. Ct. App. 2024
7 probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” d 775, 781 (Minn. App. 2013) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Abdullahi Abshir Abdullahi Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Torisa Sulvoris Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Torisa Sulvoris Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Luis Alejandro Esteban Esquivel Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Luis Alejandro Esteban Esquivel Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Allen Owens, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Ger Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Cha NMN Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Brandon John Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Charles Kalvoda Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jason Michael Slattum Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Tanisha Amiea Dunn Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Lejuan Walter Hyde Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Douglas Wayne Braker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Tony James Hewitt Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(d 22, 25 (Minn. 1984)).
State of Minnesota v. Edward David Stahlmann Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Assuming, without deciding, that these Trog factors show appellant’s particular am enability to probation, “the presence of mitigating factors does not obligate the [district] court to place a defendant on probation or impose a shorter [prison] term.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Tracy Dean Bullock Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
An abuse of discretion occurs when a district court’s “decision is ba sed on an erroneous vi ew of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2021
These are often called the “Trog 7 factors.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Galle Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Eduardo Delariva-Larios Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Even so, “the presence of mitigating factors does not obligate the court to place a defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” Wells v. State , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Christy Lynn Tjaden Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[T]he presence of mitigating factors does not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” Wells v. State , (second alteration in original) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Jamahl Lorenzo Climmons Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A district court must order the presumptive sentence provided in the sentencing guidelines unless the case involves substantial and compelling circumstances that warrant a downward departure.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Karla Jean Winterfeld Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“In weighing whether to grant a downward dispositional departure from the presumptive sentence, a district court considers the defendant as an individual and focuses on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for [her] and for society.” (quotation omitted) (emphasis omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Myron Lynn Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But “the presence of mitigating factors does not obligate the court to place a defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Ali Joshua Jalil Robida Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But “the presence of mitigating factors does ‘not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.’” (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Wall , ), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Juan Andres Gonzalez, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Therefore, we conclude that the term “amenability to probation” in section 152.152 sh ould also be interpreted broadl y to mean information regarding the offender as an individual that goes to “whether t he presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.” See Wright, d at 462; (“In weighing whether to grant a downward 9 dispositional departure from the presumptive sentence, a distri ct court considers the defendant as an individual and focuses on whether the presumptive sentence woul
State of Minnesota v. Steven Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[T]he presence of mitiga ting factors does ‘not oblig ate the court to place a defendant on probation or impose a shor ter term than the presumptive term.’” (), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Mitchell Thomas Ellis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Jessten Gordon Grover Minn. Ct. App. 2017
4 “[T]he presence of mitigati ng factors does ‘not obligat e the court to place [a] defendant on probation or impose a shor ter term than the presumptive term.’” (second alteration in original) (), review denied (Minn. Feb.