Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr., 855 N.W.2d 303.

681 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Michael Jon Schluessler Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A sentence or range of sentences prescribed under the Minnesot a Sentencing Guidelines “is presumed to be appropriate.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Zackery Charles Nathan Mills Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Merrill Newlun Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Jared Phillip Renner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
–08 (Minn. 2014) (analyzing calculation of criminal-history score for an abuse of discretion).
State of Minnesota v. Cody Douglas Thurstin Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5(2); (“A sentencing court must pronounce a sentence within the appli cable range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances t hat distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” (quotation omitted)).1 Among its duties, the sentenci
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Gibson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This standard, “while deferential, is not a limitless grant of power to the [district] court.” State v. Soto , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Arcelus Antonio Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We afford the trial court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Kamor James Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Tracy Lynn Bailey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
If a defendant requests a downward dispositional departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘mitigating circumstances are present’” an d, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , ( and Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Tevon Keenan Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N Appellate courts “afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Peter Gribovsky Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This court affor ds district courts “great discretion in the imposition of sentences and [will] reverse se ntencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Lee Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Rick William Olsen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[Appellate courts] afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” –08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation and footnote omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Manuel Balvoa Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lamarr Ousley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts “afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation om itted).
State of Minnesota v. Mitchell John Antil Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Abdurahman Abdella Mama Minn. Ct. App. 2019
3 A dis trict court may grant a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is “particularly amenable to probation.”
State of Minnesota v. Eli Jermel Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The Minne sota Sentencing Guidelines “prescribe[e] a sentence or range of sentences that is presumed to be appropriate.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Zhaokun Tong Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Cyrus Noel Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe “a sentence or range of sentences that is ‘presumed to be appropriate.’” State v. Soto , (quoting Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Anne De Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“We ‘afford the [district] cour t great discretion in the impos ition of sentences’ and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) ().
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Jentzen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Consequently, departures from the guidelines are discouraged and are intended to apply to a small number of cases,” id., that “overcome the presumption in 4 favor of the guidelines se ntence.” State v. Soto , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Gosch Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A district court may grant a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is “particularly amenable to probation.” State v. Soto , (Minn .
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a range of sentences , and the “sentencing court must pronounce a sentence within the applicable range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , (quotation omitted); see Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. David Michael Easter Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. V.-L., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. John Bruce Steurer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A district court “can exercise its discretion [in sentencing] to depart from the guidelines only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , (quotations omitted); see Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Deddrick Terrell Whitaker Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Lynette Marie Robbins Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Michael Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. John Thomas Elliott Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted) .
State of Minnesota v. Lenny Paul Bissell Minn. Ct. App. 2018
–08 (Minn. 2014) (footnote and quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Hakeem Manuel Rochao Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Jeroy Mister Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But remorse is “just one of several ‘[f]actors a court can consider’ when determining whether the defendan t is particularly amenable to probation.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Pakaykeo Phetsomphou Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N Appellate courts afford “‘the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences’ and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) ().
State of Minnesota v. James Dietz Lauck Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Severo Perez-Nava Minn. Ct. App. 2018
This standard, “while deferential, is not a limitless grant of power to the [district] court.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Edward Fisherman Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines pr escribe a sentence or a range for the sentence that is “presumed to be appropriate.” (quoting Minn. Sent.
Edson Celin Benitez Dominguez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Adkins Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Alexander Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“We ‘afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences’ and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quoting State v. Spain , ).
State of Minnesota v. Brock Dupree Lam Seawright Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A sentencing court ‘must pronounce a sentence within the applicable range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances’ that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , (quoting Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Adam Ryan Lagred Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A district court may depart from a presumptive sentence only when “identifiable, substantial, 3 and compelling circumstances [exist] that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , (quotation omitted).
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Soto , , 307-08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Boe Michael Tankersley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018
Williams v. State 910 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2018
Guidelines 2.D.1; see State v. Soto , , 308 (Minn. 2014).
A16-1527 Minn. 2018
Guidelines 2.D.1; d 303, 308 (Minn. 2014).
Ismael Hernandez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“was [Soto’s] for the rest of the night.”