Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d 77.

314 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Delilah Golden Metoxen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shanell Jane Patience Gofan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shanell Jane Patience Gofan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jesse James Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jesse James Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State v. Van Ruler, 7 -81 (Minn. App. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Furman Street Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Furman Street Minn. Ct. App. 2024
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Camille Lashay Dennis-Bond Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Camille Lashay Dennis-Bond Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-81 (Minn. App. 1985) (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Reinert Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Reinert Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Otis Redmond Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Otis Redmond Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Gavin Patrick Meany Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Dennis John Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Dennis John Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Pegel, d at 255; -81 (Minn. App. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Gavin Patrick Meany Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Anthony Bradley Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Allen Doll Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence, and we may not interfere with the district court’s exercise of discretion so long as “the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” –81 (Minn. App. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Tarik Toyshawn Smith-Whitmore Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Tarik Toyshawn Smith-Whitmore Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Anthony Sollitto Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Adam Burbul Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Wade Scott Reinhard Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Appellate courts will affirm the district court’s refusal to grant a downward departure “as long as the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” - 81 (Minn. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Ann Kong Minn. Ct. App. 2023
17, 2013); d 77, 80 (Minn. App. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Ray House Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Larry Ray House Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Appellate courts should “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. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Abdullahi Abshir Abdullahi Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Luis Alejandro Esteban Esquivel Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Luis Alejandro Esteban Esquivel Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-81 (Minn. App. 1985) (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota v. Lindsay Rae Shelltrack-Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State v. Van Ruler , rev. denied (Minn. Jul.
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Isaiah Antoine James Minn. Ct. App. 2023
When a district court imposes a presumptive sentence, appellate court s may not interfere with the district court’s exercise of discretion if the record shows that the district court “carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Moreover, 7 “[a]lthough 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.” see also Pegel, d at 254 (there is “no requirement” that a district court must discuss all the Trog factors).
State of Minnesota v. Gordy Lee Burkhart Minn. Ct. App. 2023
An appellate court “may not interfere with the [district] court’s exercise of discretion” in imposing a presumptive sentence “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).
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Junior McCall Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Brandon John Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Johnson, d at 925; see also State v. Van Ruler , - 81 (Minn. App. 1985) (stating the distr ict court need not explain its rationale against departure when it imposes a presumptive sentence).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Todd Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(noting an explanation is not required when a district court denies a departure and im poses a presumptive sentence as long as it considers the reasons for or against departure ).
State of Minnesota v. Ajoko Gaye Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Jacob Hunt Minn. Ct. App. 2023
When a district court imposes a presumptive sentence, this court “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) .
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Scott Adams, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Shevirio Kavirion Childs -Young Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Julian Leon Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jose Alejandro Mejia-Bonilla Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[A]n explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.”
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Lee Griffith Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Herman Wheeler Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- 81 (Minn. App. 1985) (stating a district court is not required to give reasons when it elects to impose a presumptive sentence, and so long as the record shows the court evaluated the information presented before deciding, the reviewing court will not interfere).
State of Minnesota v. Tashawn Antionette Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[A]n explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” State v. Van Ruler
State of Minnesota v. Jeri Jerome Knopik Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Charles Kalvoda Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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.”
State of Minnesota v. Felix Hieu Imhoff Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When a district court imposes a presumptive sentence, an appellate court “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).
State of Minnesota v. Dontae Deshaun White Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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.”