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 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).
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) Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota (A15-1247) (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley (A15-1247) (A15-1255) 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).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by