Cited by

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).

Minnesota law is clear that “[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.” (citation omitted).