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. Zaki Mohamed Sugule Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Zaki Mohamed Sugule 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. Timothy Andrew Swan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This court affords a 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. Matthew Robert Dornsbach Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[Appellate courts] 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. Antonio Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
As support for a dispositional departure, a defendant must show “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” (emphasis omitted)
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Andre Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gideon Charles Arrington, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gideon Charles Arrington, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Andre Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2016
2 Soto, –08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch 872 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2015
Jane Doe 136 v. Ralph Liebsch 872 N.W.2d 875 Minn. 2015
Northwest v. LaFleur, 583.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Dennis Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Dennis Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION In general, 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.” State 3 v. Soto, -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. Nathan John Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This court affords a district court “great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse[s] sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto, 6 –08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Forest Grant Noggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Forest Grant Noggle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Crowder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Crowder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Michael Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Michael Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION We afford a 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. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines require that “[a] sentencing court ‘must pronounce a sentence within the applicable [guidelines] 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. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kodjo Agbelengeor Anyide-Ocloo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kodjo Agbelengeor Anyide-Ocloo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting that “[a] sentencing court ‘must pronounce a sentence within the applicable range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances’” justifying a departure from the presumptive range (quoting Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Bob Matt Jaschke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bob Matt Jaschke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION A sentencing court may exercise its discretion to depart from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (citations and quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry 864 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert William Neft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert William Neft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Baruch Kefa Nieznanski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Baruch Kefa Nieznanski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
6 reviewing standard, “while deferential, is not a limitless grant of power to the trial court.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leroy Lamar Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leroy Lamar Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that particular amenability to probation, rather than mere amenability to probation, “can justify staying a presumptively executed sentence,” which is a dispositional departure).
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hope Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Luis Guzman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Luis Guzman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a sentence or a range for the sentence that is “presumed to be appropriate.” (citing Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Hope Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellate courts “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. Miranda Catherine Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by