Cited by

Generally, if the record shows that the district court evaluated the testimony and information presented to it before determining whether to depart, this court “may not interfere with the sentencing court’ s exercise of discretion.” State v. Van Ruler , -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).

This court will not interfere with the district court’s exercise of discretion, “as long as the record 4 shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

Although a district court is required to articulate reasons if a departure is granted, a court need not give an explanation “when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.”

The court need not provide an explanation when the court “considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.”

A district court need not provide an explanation for denying the departure if it “elects to impose the presumptive sentence.”

-81 (Minn. App. 1985) (“[A]n explanation is not required when the [district] court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.”).

“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.” d 216, 220 (Minn. App. 2022) (applying this aspect of Van Ruler to the denial of a durational-departure motion), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

A district court need not explain its reasoning “when [it] considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” d 77, 80 (Minn. App. 1985).

When denying a motion for a sentencing departure, a district court must demonstrate that it “carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

17, 2013); -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

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

S –81 (Minn. App. 1985).

rev. denied (Minn. May 18, 1985); (noting that an “explanation is not required” for the denial of a durational departure, provided that the district court considered the arguments and the defendant was sentenced to the presumptive sentence).

(), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.

And appellate courts “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 10 determination.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

(stating that, if the district court “considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence,” an explanation for denying departure is not required).

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

Nor must a district court explain its decision to impose a presumptive sentence instead of granting a departure request so long as the record reflects that it “considers reasons for departure.” State v. Van Ruler , -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

And we will 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.”

And an appellate court cannot interfere with the district court’s exercise of discretion in sentencing when the record shows that the district court “carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” –81 (Minn. App. 1985).

“ Although the trial 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.” State v. Van Ruler

See State v. Van Ruler, 7 (“[A]n explanation is not required when the [district] court considers reasons for a departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.”); Pegel, d at 253-54.

Although the district court did not explicitly address the Trog factors here, “an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” see also State v. Pegel , d 251, 254 (Minn. App. 2011) ( providing that a district court is not required to discuss each Trog factor before imposing a sentence).

State v. Van Ruler, 7 -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

Likewise, although a district court must provide reasons for departing from a presumptive sentence, “an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.”

-81 (Minn. App. 1985) (emphasis added).