Cited by

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

314 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Rolando Banda Minn. Ct. App. 2022
() (reasoning there is no requirement for a district court to discuss all the Trog factors before imposing a sentence).
State of Minnesota v. Mubarak Osman Musse 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. William Clyde Grunwald Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that the district court need not provide an explanation when it considers reasons for departure and imposes a presumptive sentence).
State of Minnesota v. Cree James Diver Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Monique Swart 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. Cody Robert Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
State of Minnesota v. John Edward Juneau Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Omar Castillo Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“[A]n explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.”).
State of Minnesota v. Samson Odey Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Cory Wiedeman Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Tony James Hewitt Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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.
State of Minnesota v. Derek Steven Serbus Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).
State of Minnesota v. Edward David Stahlmann Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 77, 80 (Minn. App. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Winston Eckman Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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.
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thurmon Keltner Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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 of Minnesota v. Lidio Roque Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Tracy Dean Bullock Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Scott Hurst Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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.”).
State of Minnesota v. Devon Deshawn Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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
State of Minnesota v. Brian John Leonida Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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.”).
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Elmo Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Tony Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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
State of Minnesota v. Angel Gabriel Aviles Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Earl Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Xueyan Wang Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Damon Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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. Damien Damonte Carey Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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 of Minnesota v. Kenneth Freeland Jami Morrow, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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.”).
State of Minnesota v. Jonna Kojo Armartey Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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).
State of Minnesota v. Eugene Foster Cole Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. David Ronald Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Terrell Reese Schaeffer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Aldray Devon Young Minn. Ct. App. 2020
information presented before making a determination.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Christy Lynn Tjaden Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Michael Loving Minn. Ct. App. 2020
17, 2013); State v. Van Ruler
State of Minnesota v. Robert Alonzo Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
17, 2013); State v. Van Ruler
State of Minnesota v. Alan Danny Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Josi Ann Adelman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allen Pryatel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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 of Minnesota v. Lawrence Frank Herron Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jairo Manuel Medina-Acosta Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Peter Roy Byrnes Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Van Ruler , , 81 (Minn. App. 1985 ).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Matthew Girling Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Duviaze Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Darrell Wayne Brownbull, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[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).
State of Minnesota v. Damon Dwight Wiederhoft Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Van Ruler , (Mi nn.
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Varlyn Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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).
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Armando Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.
State of Minnesota v. Ali Joshua Jalil Robida Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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.