Cited by

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

667 citing documents.

, A17-0220, A17-0222 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 303, 307–08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court affords district courts “great discretion in the imposition of sentences and [will] reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“We afford the trial 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) (quotation omitted).
State v. Ivy 902 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Ivy 902 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court “afford[s] the [district] court great discreti on in the imposition of sentence s’ and reverse[s] sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , –08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation and footnote omitted ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines pr escribe a sentence or a range for the sentence that is “presumed to be appropriate.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Appellate courts afford a district cour t “great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions on ly for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (q uotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines establish sentencing ranges that are “presumed to be appropriate.” (quotation 19 omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Soto , –08 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
That is not amenability to probation, and it’ s certainly not particular amenability to probation, which is what [the court] would need to find.” -09 (Minn. 2014) (requiring district court to support departure with finding that defendant is “particularly amenable to probation,” and not “merely .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Soto , d 303, 314 (Minn. 2014) (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
limit the sente ncing court’s discretion by prescribing a sentence or range of sentences that is ‘presumed to be appropriate.’” (quoting Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines establish sentencing ranges that are “presumed to be appropriate.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
D E C I S I O N The sentencing guidelines “prescrib[e] a sentence or range of sentences that is ‘presumed to be appropriate.’” (quoting Minn. Sent.
State v. Washington 894 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Washington 894 N.W.2d 168 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-08 (Minn.201‘4) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A district court may grant a downward dispositional departure from the presumptive guidelines range if a defendant has a “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” (requiring a defendant be “particularly” amenable to probation).
A16-0684 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chris Harry McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chris Harry McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“We 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. Anthony Ra Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Ra Hare Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellate courts “afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of discretion.” –08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Scott Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Lee Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Scott Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a sentence or a range for the sentence that is “presumed to be appropriate.” (quoting Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Lee Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Ervin Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dimitri Devonte Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Artaveus Shawntez Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dimitri Devonte Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[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. Dennis Ervin Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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. Artaveus Shawntez Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Scott Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Adam Wallace Jaunich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Adam Wallace Jaunich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Guidelines 2.D.1 (2014); (“[A] sentencing court can exercise its discretion to depart from the guidelines only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Scott Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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).