Cited by

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

667 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Walter David Tischer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Walter David Tischer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abigail Rae Trulson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abigail Rae Trulson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bailey Jordan Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Michael Kokette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Michael Kokette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bailey Jordan Garcia 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. Dionte Gosa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Toney Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Boon Wa Thao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Eric Toney Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 303, 307 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Dionte Gosa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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.” (quoting Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Boon Wa Thao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 882 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 882 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Kalib John Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Kalib John Nichols 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, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 303, 306–07, 314 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION 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. John Porter Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William Heminchi Underhill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John Porter Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William Heminchi Underhill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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. Duane Meredith Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Duane Meredith Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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. David Arthur Barnes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian Scott Schmitz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
– 08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen 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. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This court “afford[s] the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse[s] sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” –08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rico Patrick Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rico Patrick Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen 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. Matthew Christopher Desjarlais Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Christopher Desjarlais Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This court will reverse the denial of a motion for a sentencing departure only if there is an exceptional basis justifying departure, or if the district court failed to exercise its discretion, see, review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Christian Mccary Mayo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christian Mccary Mayo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The district court considered and denied appellant’s motion for a downward dispositional departure from the guidelines, (holding that a sentencing court must assign a sentence within the presumptive range “‘unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances’ that distinguish a case”) (quoting Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Andrew Swan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Robert Dornsbach Minn. Ct. App. 2016