Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr., 855 N.W.2d 303.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Soto , 08 (Minn. 2014); Minn. Sent.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The district court can impose a departure from the 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 omitted).
- State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
Peter Devonn Crosby, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5 “We ‘afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences’ and reverse sentencing decisions onl y for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quoting State v. Spain , ).
- A20-1499 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DECISION Appellate courts “afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions on ly for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quot ation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Reviewing 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, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020); (M inn.
-
State of Minnesota, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Guidelines 2.D.1 (Supp. 2019)
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Guidelines 2.D.1 (Supp. 2017); d 303, 308 (Minn. 2014) (stating a district court may only depart from the guidelines if there is a substantial and compelling reason to do so).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
4 “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, Respondent, vs. Martell Antonio Bloxson, Appellant.
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(quotations omitted) ( and Minn. Sent.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Soto , , 308 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[A] sentencing court can exercise its di scretion to depart from the guidelines only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (quotations and citations omitte d).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We afford the [district] court great di scretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 20 14) (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
A20-0837
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Soto , (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
DECISION “We afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
-
A20-0310
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“We afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , –08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Accordingly, a sentencing court can exercise its discretion to depart from the guidelines only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, and those circumstances provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (quot ations and citations omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Appellate courts “afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of t hat discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a range of sentences that is presumed to be appropriate and the sentencing court “must pronounce a sentence within the applicable range unless there exist identifiable, substant ial, and compelling circumstances that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , (quotation omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
3 DECISION Appellate courts “afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentenci ng decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Min n. 2014) (footnote and quot ation omitted).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021