Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr., 855 N.W.2d 303.

681 citing documents.

Minn. 2020
(“The use of an abuse-of-discretion standard in our review of sentencing decisions, while deferential, is not a limitless grant of power to the trial court.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Jairo Manuel Medina-Acosta Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jamahl Lorenzo Climmons Minn. Ct. App. 2020
One factor is whether the offender is “particularly amenable to probation .” see also Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Chad Joseph Shaw 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) (quotation omitted).
Roilan Garriga v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Matthew Girling Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Utto 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. Karla Jean Winterfeld Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Richard Danell Dunston Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-09 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Darrell Wayne Brownbull, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a sentence or range of sentences that “is presumed to be appropriate.” State v. Soto , 7 (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Varlyn Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Guidelines 2.D.1.c (2018); (noting that a district court abuses its discretion when it departs from the sentencing guidelines unless it determines that “identifiable, 4 substantial and compell ing circumstances” exist to justify a departure).
State of Minnesota v. Damon Dwight Wiederhoft Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts afford a district cour t “great discretion in the imposition of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions on ly for an abuse of that discretion.” - 08 (Minn. 2014) (quotatio n omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Armando Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. David Alexander Schill, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Myron Lynn Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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. Ali Joshua Jalil Robida Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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 guideline sentence.” State v. Soto , (alteration in original) (quotations and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Daniel Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Shawn James McEachern Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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. Michael Alan Bunnell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A sentence or range of sentences pres cribed under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines “is presumed to be appropriate.” State v. Soto , , 308 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Trevor Daniel Schweitzer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[A] sentencing court can exercise its discretion to d epart from the guidelines only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present, and those circumstances provide a su bstantial and compelling reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (citations and quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Monroe Leshawn Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jason Rudolf Vadner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Marcus Kendrick Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Ernest Alvin Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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, substantial, and compelling circumstances that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Deshawn Devontae Lamar Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Robert Tichich Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Particular amenability to probation is a proper ground to support a district court’s departure decision, d 303, 309 (Minn. 2014), and includes consideration of “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” State v. Trog
State of Minnesota v. Wendy Kristine Abbott Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Soto , –08 (Minn. 2014) (footnote and quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, vs, Tyler Paul Wetzel Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Damion John Gullickson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelin e s p r e s c r i b e a r a n g e o f s e n t e nc e s , a n d t h e sentencing court “must pronounce a sentence within the applicable range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances that di stinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” d 303, 308 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted); see M i n n .
State of Minnesota v. Ramiro Alejandro Pena Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Thomas Cobb Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2 D E C I S I O N 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 (A18-1579) (A18-1569) v. William Cornell Walker (A18-1569) (A18-1579) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
307-08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
Ernesto Torres Garcia v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Appellate courts “afford the [di strict] 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. Anthony Scott David Auginaush Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.” State v. Soto , ( and Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. John Henry Cone-Wade Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.” -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
see also State v. Soto , , 308 (Minn. 2014) (noting that a sentencing court can exercise discretion to depart from guidelines only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present and those circumstances provide substantial and compelling reason not to impose guidelines sentence).
State of Minnesota (A18-0876) (A18-1246) v. Casey Daniel Bauer (A18-0876) (A18-1246) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Id.; see also State v. Soto , (noting that a sentencing court can exercise discretion to depart from guidelines only if aggrav ating or mitigating circumstances are present and those circumstances provide substantial and compelling reason not to impose guidelines sentence).
State of Minnesota v. Kimberly Ann Kruger Minn. Ct. App. 2019
On review, we “ afford the [distric t] 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. Craig Stevens Handeland Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Soto , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“In sentencing, district courts have a great deal of discretion.” State v. Soto
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Victor Mouchka Minn. Ct. App. 2019
On appeal, we afford the district court “grea t discretion in the imposi tion of sentences and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” State v. Soto , –08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation and footnote omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Wayne Culver Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Omar Auquil Muhammad Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe a range of sentences and the sentencing court “must pronounce a sentence within the applicable range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances that distinguish a case and overcome the presumption in favor of the guidelines sentence.” d 303, 308 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted); See Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Juan Andres Gonzalez, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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. 6 Soto, -08 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Erick Carl Longo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Distinguished Julian Sanchez-Sanchez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
3 and Kirby for support, but both cases are distinguishable.
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Ramon Ivy Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Soto , -08 (Minn. 2014).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by