Cited by

We will interfere with the district court’s sentencing decision only when the sentence is “disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 244.11, subd.

“ We review a district court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences for an abuse of discretion.”

10 We will interfere with the district court’s decision on sentencing only when the sentence is “disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 244.11, subd.

d 237, 246 (Minn. 2017) (declining to address a constitutional issue raised for the first time on appeal).

Release is not automatic because “pu blic safety and the interests of the victims’ families will be carefully considered before any eventual release could be approved.” State v. Ali , (Chutich, J., dissenting); see also Jackson v. State , n. 8 (Minn. 2016) (detailing statutory steps that must occur before supervised release of an offender is authorized).

See State v. Ali , (holding that a constitutional issue raised for the first time on appeal to our court is forfeited).

(holding an argument wa ived when not presented to the district court); see also Olson v. One 1999 Lexus , n.8 (Minn. 2019) (discussing th e difference between facial and as-applied due process challenges).

An appellate court “will interfere with a district court’s sentencing discretion only when the sentence is disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“We will inter fere with the district court’s sentencing discretion only when the sentence is disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“We will interfere with the district court’s sentencing discretion only when the sentence is disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” State v. Ali , (quota tion and citation omitted).

d 237 (Minn. 2017), cert.

This court reviews a district court’s 7 imposition of consecutive sentences for an abuse of discretion and will reverse only when a sentence “is disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.”

“We review a district court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences for an abuse of discretion ,” and we will intervene when a sentence “is disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the crimina lity of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotation omitted).

“We review a district court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences for an abuse of discretion.”

State v. Ali , , 246 (Minn. 2017) (holding that the defendant forfeited his equal protection argument when he failed to raise the claim in the district court), cert.

As detailed in the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in State v. Ali , , 243 (Minn. 2017), cert.

4 (limiting reply brief to new matter raised in respondent's brief); see also State v. Ali , , 247 n.9 (Minn. 2017) (holding that, where the State did not raise argument in its response brief, defendant could not raise it for the first time in his reply brief).

State v. Ali ( Ali II), cert.