Cited by

State v. Van Ruler , (stating that if the district cour t “considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence,” an explanation for denying departure is not required).4 Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when denying the motion for a dispositional departure.

Serbus asserts “the district court abused its discretion when it denied [his] motion for a downward dispositional departure without giving any reasons for doing so.” But, “[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, d 8 917, 925-26 (Minn. App. 2013) (applying this rule).

d 77, 80 (Minn. App. 1985).

When a district court imposes a presumptive sentence, an appellate court “may not interfer e with the [district court’s] exercise of discretion, as long as the record shows that [t he district court] carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” -81 (M inn.

Moreover, although the district court must give reasons for a departure, “an explanation is not required when th e court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.”

State v. Van Ruler , (“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.”).

And, “[a] lthough the [district] court is required to give reasons for departure, an explanation is not required when the court c onsiders reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” State v. Van Ruler

Indeed, although the district court must give reasons for granting a sentencing departure, it is not required to provide reasons for denying a 13 departure.2 (“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.”).

As a threshold matter, the state argues that “this Court need not address [Xiong’s] arguments why the facts of his case entitle him to a departure.” The state directs us to State v. Van Ruler , -81 (Minn. App. 1985) , where we stated that “[t]he 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 determinati on.” However, appellate cou

And, “[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.”

“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.”

See Pegel, d at 254 (holding that the district court is not required to discuss every sentencing factor when declining to depart); (stating that the district court need not provide an explanation when it considers reasons for departure but imposes a presumptive sentence) .

State v. Van Ruler , 0 (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.”).

We will affirm “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 , -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

information presented before making a determination.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

“We will affirm the imposition of a presumptive guidelines sentence when ‘the 5 record shows [that] the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.’” State v. Johnson , d 917, 925 (Minn. App. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Van Ruler , ), review denied (Minn. Sept.

17, 2013); State v. Van Ruler

17, 2013); State v. Van Ruler

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

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

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

And, “[a]lthough the [district] court is required to give reasons for departure, an explanation is not required when the court c onsiders reasons for depa rture but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” State v. Van Ruler

“[A]n explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” State v. Van Ruler , 0 (Minn. App. 1985).

See State v. Van Ruler , (Mi nn.

“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 , 5 (Minn. App. 1985).

information presented before making a determination.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985); (stating we will generally affirm presumptive sentence when the record shows that district court evaluated the circumstances), review denied (Minn. Sept.

“We will affirm the imposition of a presumptive guidelines sentence when ‘the record shows [that] the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.’” (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Van Ruler , ), review 7 denied (Minn. Sept.

Although a district court is required to provide 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

And, “[a]lthough the [district] court is required to give reasons for departure, an explanation is not required when the court c onsiders reasons for depa rture but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” State v. Van Ruler

district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence so long as it considers the proposed reasons for departure, and we may not interfere wit h 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.” State v. Van Ruler , d 77, 80-81 (Minn. App. 1985); (“[T]he district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a

We may not interfere with a sentencing court’s exercise of discretion in imposing a presumptive sentence “as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented.”

A district court is not required to explain its reasoning for imposing a presumptive sentence “as long as the record sho ws the sentencing court care fully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

’” Johnson, d at 925 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Van Ruler , ).

An appellate court cannot simply substitute its judgment for that of the district court, and, absent a clear abuse of discretion, appellate courts “generally will not interfere.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985) (“The reviewing court may not interfere with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion, as long as the re cord shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination [to impose the presumptive sentence].”).