Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Kabba Kangbateh, 868 N.W.2d 10.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. DeAngelo Cortez Ransom Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. DeAngelo Cortez Ransom Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts “generally will not interfere with a sentencing court’s decision to impose a term within the presumptive sentence range.” (explaining that “it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of [a] refusal to depart”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Accordingly, the applicable caselaw is the well-developed caselaw—consisting of opinions issued both before and after Cermak and Womack—that an appellate court “generally will not interfere with a sentencing court’s decision to impose a term within the presumptive sentence range.” Delk, 8 d at 428
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A21-0480 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
An appellate court “generally will not inte rfere with a sentencing court’s decision to impose a term within the presumptive sentence range.” d 10, 14 (Minn. 2015).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The state’s appellate courts “generally will not interfere with a sentencing court’ s decision to impose 5 a term within the presumptive sentence range.” State v. Kangbateh , , 14 (Minn. 2015).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We therefore review a district court’s sente ncing decision for an abuse of discretion and “generally will not interfere with a sentencing court’s decision to impose a term within the presumptive sentenc e range.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Walter David Tischer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Walter David Tischer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION “[Appellate courts] review sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Donald Kalib John Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Kalib John Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An appellate court “generally will not interfere with a sentencing court’s decision to impose a term within the presumptive sentence range.” d 10, 14 (Minn. 2015); (stating that appellate courts “will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure” (quotation omitte
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Downward durational departure “[Appellate courts] review sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
2 DECISION “[Appellate courts] review sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion.”