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. Christopher Todd Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020)
Dean Robert Hoversten v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Ajoko Gaye Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A district court may depart from the guidelines sentence “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, ” “and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Victor Steven Fortner Minn. Ct. App. 2023
lated context of a district court’s reliance on a diagnostic assessment as grounds for a downward dispositional sentencing departure, the Minnesota Supreme Court has said that “the mere fact that [a] person who prepared a report for the district court reached a certain 11 conclusion does not necessarily justify departing from the presumptive disposition under the guidelines.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Martin Kaufman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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) ().
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Paul Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
If a defendant requests a downward dispositional departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘ mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” ( and Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012)).
State of Minnesota v. Shevirio Kavirion Childs -Young Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“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. Gary Lee Kies Minn. Ct. App. 2023
3 DECISION The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a sentence or a range for the sentence that is “presumed to be appropriate.” Minn. Sent ’g Guidelines 2.D .1 (2020); (citing this provision of the guidelines).
State of Minnesota v. Courtney Wade Locke Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Julian Leon Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jose Alejandro Mejia-Bonilla Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Vincent James Tran Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Virnig Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Barrett Graham Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Angela Marie Edge Minn. Ct. App. 2023
If a defendant requests a downward dispositional departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘ mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” ( and Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012)).
State of Minnesota v. Allison Wesley Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Peter Jay Engen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Lee Griffith Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Herman Wheeler Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1 (2020); (further stating a district court may depart from the guidelines sentence “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence” (quotations omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Tashawn Antionette Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Dejahn Akeem Wiley-Hunt Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Suvwe Peter Ighovojah Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014).
Xanth Tyler Wilkins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
5 DECISION The district court has “great discretion in the imposition of sentences and [appellate courts] reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Charles Kalvoda Minn. Ct. App. 2022
presents the substantial and compelling circumstances that are necessary to justify a departure.” -9 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Suavay Pierre Sidney Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The district court has “great discretion in the imposition of sentences.” - 08 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Michael Slattum Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Felix Hieu Imhoff Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A district court may depart from the 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.” (emphasis omitted) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2018) (stating that a district court “must” sentence within the guidelines range “unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departur
State of Minnesota v. Mark Daniel Murrell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Braxton Monte Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
1 We reverse a sentencing decision only when a district court abuses its “great discretion.” - 08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rolando Banda Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Mubarak Osman Musse Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that limiting the number of sentencing departures “fosters uniformity in sentencing, which is a primary purpose of the Sentencing Guidelines”); Minn. Sent’g Guidelines cmt.
State of Minnesota v. Abraham Palma Hernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2022
District courts are afforded “great discretion” in sentencing decisions and reversal is warranted “only for an abuse of that discretion.” - 08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Fahid Nazir Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DECISION “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. William Clyde Grunwald Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The district court has “great discretion in the imposition of sentences and [appellate courts] reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Buie Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(holding that district courts may consider “social or economic factor[s]” at sentencing if they are “relevant to determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Cree James Diver Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Lee Kelley Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The upward durational departure from the sentencing guidelines The district court may depart from the 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.” (quotation and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Bjorn Bolton Iverson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DECISION “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. Ashley Monique Swart Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A district court may depart from the guidelines sentence only “if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are prese nt, and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (emphasis omitted) (quotations and citations omitted); see also Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Donald Raymond Guse Minn. Ct. App. 2022
6 We review a district court’s decision to depart from a presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of its “great discretion.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jordan Latrell Jefferson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-86 (Minn. 2011); -08 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Cody Robert Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2022
District courts are afforded “great discretion in the imposition of sentences,” which appellate courts will reverse “only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lejuan Walter Hyde Minn. Ct. App. 2022
2.D.303 (Supp. 2019) ( ).
State of Minnesota v. John Edward Juneau Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Guidelines 1.B.13 (2016)
State of Minnesota v. Franky Esquivel Torres Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Guidelines 2.D.3 .a(8) (2019); State v. Soto
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Warren Luepke Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. William Eugene Hale Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Omar Castillo Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-08 (Minn. 2014) ; State v. Larson
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Jacob Nohner Minn. Ct. App. 2022
2.D.303 (d 303, 309 (Minn. 2014) ).
State of Minnesota v. Duncan Nyanaro Osoro Minn. Ct. App. 2022