Cited by

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

681 citing documents.

Julian Onesimo Narvaez-Ramirez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
26, 2009); n.1 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Felix Velasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Carl Remley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A district court may depart from the presumed sentence only when there “exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Dante Vaughn 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) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Deshawn Wilkes Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“We afford the trial court great discreti on in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (internal quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Brian Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo Ramirez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Yusef Abdi Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A downward durational or dispositional departure is permitted when there “exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Thomas Vener Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth James Harrison, Jr. 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.” State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quoting State v. Spain , ).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Emmanuel Ballard Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Kay Schrupp 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) ().
State of Minnesota v. Morgan Leslie Pavey Minn. Ct. App. 2017
7 Soto, –08 (Minn. 2014 ) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Darryl Don Freeberg Minn. Ct. App. 2017
–08 (Minn. 2014) (quot ation omitted).
A17-0222 State of Minnesota v. Emanuel Lydell Collier, and Emanuel Lydell Collier, vs. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Marie Fostvedt Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 303, 307–08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alfredo Darcourt Castellanos 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 v. Tiffany Lynn Lambert 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 v. Steven Bernard Edwards 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 v. Brett Steven Lewis 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 v. Brian Keith Jourdain Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Katherine Marie Kurimay 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 v. Clint Scott Bearce Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines establish sentencing ranges that are “presumed to be appropriate.” (quotation 19 omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Jacka 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 v. Jason David Hoversten Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Robert Scott Wood 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 v. Michael John Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Soto , –08 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Steven Mittelsted 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 v. James Francis Muelken Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Soto , d 303, 314 (Minn. 2014) (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota v. John Jacob White 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 v. Bielmar Alverez-Agular aka Bielmar Alvarez-Aguilar Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Sammy Lee Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Robert Nicholas Heinze Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines establish sentencing ranges that are “presumed to be appropriate.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brad Jules Krekelberg 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 v. Anthony Linard Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) .
State of Minnesota v. Dwayne Alan Case Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Cory James Bebeau 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).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony K. Adams 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).