Cited by

Pegel, d at 255; -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

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).

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).

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

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).

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

State v. Van Ruler , rev. denied (Minn. Jul.

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).

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).

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).

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).

(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 ).

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) .

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

- 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).

“[A]n explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” State v. Van Ruler

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).

“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.”

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).

“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.”

() (reasoning there is no requirement for a district court to discuss all the Trog factors before imposing a 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.”

(stating that the district court need not provide an explanation when it considers reasons for departure and imposes a presumptive sentence).

First, “an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentenc e.” State v. Van Ruler

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).

When a district court imposes a presumptive sentence, we “may not interfere with the [district court’s] exercis e of discretion, as long as the record shows [the district court] carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” State v. Van Ruler, 4 -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

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