Cited by

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].”).

See (noting that even when departure factors exist, “an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but el ects to impose the presumptive sentence”).

See 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.”).

A nd, “[a]lthough the [district] court is required to give reasons fo r departure, an explanation is not required when the court cons i d e r s r e a s o n s f o r d e p a r t u r e b u t elects to impose the presumptive sentence.”

’” (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Van Ruler , ).

(stating that no explanation is required when the district court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose a presumptive sentence).

17, 2013); (“[A]n explanation is not required when the court considers reasons fo r departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.”).

The district court has broad discretion in sentencing 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 inform ation presented before making a determination.”

7 “Although the [district] court is required to give reasons for departure, an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons fo r 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.”

We “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).

d 77, 80–81 (Minn. App. 1985); see also Johnson, d at 926.

We “may not interfere with the sentencing court’s ex ercise of discretion, as lo ng as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and informati on presented before 5 making a determination.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985).

W.2d 909, 917 (Minn. 1996) (d 478, 479 (Minn. 1981) , to hold that, when sentencing a defendant on the same day for multiple offenses not part of a single behavioral incident, occurring at different times, and involving different victims, a district court may assign one criminal history point for each previous felony conviction); (affirming use of the Hernandez method in sentencing multiple convictions against the same victim).

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

See State v. Van Ruler , (concluding there is no requirement for district court to explain decision not to depart from presumptive sentence).

A lthough a district c ourt need not provide an explanation if it “considers reasons for [a] departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence,” the district court here did so, explaining: Well, Mr. Wood, you know I find myself in a really difficult position.

-81 (Minn. App. 1985) (noting that district court is not required to explain its reasoning for imposing sentence within presumptive range).

(noting that if a district court considers the reasons for departure but chooses not to depart, an explanation is not required)

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