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. Ismail Adam Abdo 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).
State of Minnesota (A20-0305) (A20-0310) v. Dane Robert Mullen (A20-0305) (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 v. Jessica Katherine James 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 v. Pierce Gerald Heston 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 v. Julie Lynn Bigelow Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Andre Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Earl Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Xueyan Wang 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 v. Jose Francisco Velasquez-Lazo 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 v. Damon Moore 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 v. Reginald Fenion Coe Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Damien Damonte Carey Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. David Scott Bothe Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Casey Jo Eggum Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Freeland Jami Morrow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Ronny Ray Oleson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
James Eugene Love v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A sentencing [judge] must pronounce a sentence within the applicable range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances that distinguish a case.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jonna Kojo Armartey 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 disc retion.” State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quoting State v. Spain , ).
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Antoinette Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Incantalupo Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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.” State v. Soto , (emphasi s omitted) (quotations omitted) (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alex Bernard Cuffy 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).
Nicholas Adam Willard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Edward Lataris Easton Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Christian Hamzah Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To justify a departure, a district court must find mitigating circumstances that “provide a substantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Manuel Valdez Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Cory Anthony Klingelhoets Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A district court must impose a sentence within the guidelines “unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” Id.; accord State v. Soto
State of Minnesota v. Dane Michael Vandervoort Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Roy Luckhardt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Jefferson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[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.” (quotations and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Alize Khudari Perkins Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[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 4 sentence.” State v. Soto , (cita tions and quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Joseph Melius Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Terrell Reese Schaeffer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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. John Evans Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Michael Guzik Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[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.” (quotations and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anike Tatiaramika Jiles Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The requirement that a defendant be “particularly” amenable to probation “ensure[s] that the defendant’s amenability to probation distinguishes the defendant from most others and truly presents the ‘substantial[ ] and compelling circumstances’ that are necessary to justify a departure.” (quoting Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Levar Randolph Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[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.” State v. Soto , (citations and quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eduardo Delariva-Larios Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a sentence or a range for the sentence that is “presumed to be appropriate.” ( quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Aldray Devon Young Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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. Christy Lynn Tjaden Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts “‘afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences’ and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” See State v. Soto , 4 -08 ( Minn. 2014) (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Spain , ).
State of Minnesota v. Travis James Fritz Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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. Nyla Tomeka Murrell-French Minn. Ct. App. 2020
To depart from the guide lines range, a sentencing court must find mitigating circumstances that show “a substantial a nd compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , 8 (Minn. 2014) (quota tion omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Luke Alexander Dean Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts 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 v. Alan Danny Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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) ( (M inn.
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey George Ackerson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
We “afford the [district] court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentenci ng decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Casey Belden Hoskins Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. 13 Soto, Cottew, d at 636-38.
State of Minnesota v. Johnny Clifton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The district court has broad discretion in sentencing, State v. Soto , –08 (Minn. 2014), and we see no abuse of discretion here.
State of Minnesota v. Josi Ann Adelman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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. Jason Cory Walker Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allen Pryatel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
urt abused its discretion by denying his motion for a downward dispositional departure from the sentencing guidelines “because there were substantial and compelling circumstances to warrant the departure.” Reviewing courts “afford th e [district] court great di scretion in th e imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions on ly for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (M inn.
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Frank Herron Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).