Cited by

And the district court need not provide explanation for imposing the presumptive sentence so long as it “considers reasons for departure.”

Appellate courts will affirm the denial of a sentencing departure “as long as the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

(“Although the [district] court is required to give reasons for departure, an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.”).

Appellate courts will affirm the denial of a motion for sentencing departure “as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

(“The Hernandez method may be used by the trial court, in its discretion, .

(stating that district court always has discretion to impose a presumptive sentence), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

(“[A]n explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.

We will affirm the district court’s sentencing decision “as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.”

(noting that a district court “is required to give reasons for departure,” but “an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence”).

A “reviewing court may not interfere with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

We will affirm the district court’s sentencing decision “as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.”

Moreover, “[a]lthough the [district] court is required to give reasons for departure, an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.”

-81 (Minn. App. 1985) 9 (stating that this court will affirm “as long as the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination”).

A “district court [is] not required to state its reasons for not departing on the record.” (), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

” see also Delk, d at 428-2 9 (noting that “[a] sentence within the range provided in the appropriate box on the sentencing guidelines grid is not a departure from the presumptive sentence”).

When “the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination,” we “may not interfere with the [district] court’s exercise of discretion.” d 77, 80-81 (Minn. App. 1985).

If the record shows that the district court carefully considered and evaluated the information presented to it, this court “may not interfere” with its imposition of a presumptive sentence, “even if there are 7 grounds that would justify departure.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985)

When “the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination,” we “may not interfere with the [district] court’s exercise of discretion.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

17, 2013); d 77, 80 (Minn. App. 1985).

Moreover, although a district court “is required to give reasons for departure, an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” see also Pegel, d at 6 254 (rejecting the appellant’s argument that the district court failed to discuss each of the Trog factors and observing that “there is no requirement that the district court must do so”).

Though a district court “is required to give reasons for departure, an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” see also Pegel, d at 254 (rejecting the appellant’s argument that the district court failed to discuss each of the Trog factors and observing that “there is no requirement that the district court must do so”).

When “the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination,” we “may not interfere with the [district] court’s exercise of discretion.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

While a district court “is required to give reasons for departure, an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” see also Pegel, d at 254 (rejecting appellant’s argument that the district court failed to discuss each Trog factor and observing that “there is no requirement that the district court must do so”).

When “the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination,” we “may not interfere with the [district] court’s exercise of discretion.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

But appellate courts “may not interfere with the [district] court’s exercise of discretion, as long as the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” –81 (Minn. App. 1985).

A district court need not give an explanation “when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” d 77, 80 (Minn. App. 1985).

But a district court need not explain its reasons for denying a departure motion if the court “considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” State v. Van Ruler , see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1.c.