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. 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
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Catherine Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(finding that defendant presented such a “rare” case and agreeing with this court that “the district court abused its discretion when it stayed [appellant’s] sentence”).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Richard Doble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert Richard Doble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel David Ojanen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel David Ojanen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
the decision for an abuse of discretion already calls for resolving the legal question de novo.” n.1 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
14 “[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. Leann Bobleter Sargent Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leann Bobleter Sargent Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Third, the Minnesota Supreme Court has “never said that merely being amenable to probation—as opposed to being particularly amenable to probation—can justify staying a presumptively executed sentence.”
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Jonathan Hardy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Jonathan Hardy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This standard, “while deferential, is not a limitless grant of power to the [district] court.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mahle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mahle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
to determine whether the sentence is inconsistent with statutory requirements, unreasonable, inappropriate, excessive, unjustifiably disparate, or not warranted by the findings of fact issued by the district court.’” (quoting Minn. Stat. § 244.11, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Anthony Engebretson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Anthony Engebretson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-08 (Minn. 2014) (citations and quotations omitted).