Cited by

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

305 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Timothy Andrew Swan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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. Yatarrie Lee Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Yatarrie Lee Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But 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. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Angela Dawn Jackson, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Angela Dawn Jackson, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Elliott Patrick Ketz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Michael Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Elliott Patrick Ketz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court does not have to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence, and we will not interfere with the district court’s exercise of discretion when “the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” -81 (Minn. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Adam Michael Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (affirming the district court’s decision not to order a downward dispositional departure when it sufficiently evaluated all information presented on that issue).
State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
and exercised its discretion.” –81 (Minn. App. 1985) (stating that the district court is not required to give reasons when it elects to impose a presumptive sentence).
State of Minnesota v. Jack Arnold Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jack Arnold Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that, if district court considers reasons to depart but elects to impose the presumptive sentence, no explanation for denying departure is required).
State of Minnesota v. Francisco Cleofus Mountain Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Francisco Cleofus Mountain Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court does not have to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence, and we will not interfere with the district court’s exercise of discretion when “the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” -81 (Minn. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Hope Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hope Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Catherine Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Catherine Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-81 (Minn. App. 1985) (noting that a district court is not obliged to give explanation for its decision not to depart from the presumptive sentence and that a reviewing court may not interfere with that decision if the record reflects that the district court considered the testimony and information presented be
James Spencer, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James Spencer, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court is not required to explain its reasons for imposing a presumptive sentence, and this court does 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).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Although the district court was not required to explain its imposition of a presumptive sentence, we may not interfere with the district court’s exercise of discretion because the record shows that it “carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Leone Revello Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Leone Revello Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-81 (Minn. App. 1985) (stating that the district court is not required to give reasons when it imposes the presumptive sentence).
State of Minnesota v. Jay Michael Ellingson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Michael Ellingson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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.” d 77, 80-81 (Minn. App. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that the district court has discretion to depart when substantial and compelling 15 circumstances are present).
State of Minnesota v. Basil Benna Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Basil Benna Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
4 (rejecting appellant’s argument that the district court failed to discuss all of the Trog factors and observing that “there is no requirement that the district court must do so”); (“[A]n explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.”).
State of Minnesota v. Gary Richard Wessman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gary Richard Wessman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Richard Beying Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Richard Beying Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Kanishka Shereal Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kanishka Shereal Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We review a district court’s sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion and will not interfere “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)
State of Minnesota v. Tawnja Rene Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tawnja Rene Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2014
And we “may not interfere with the [district] courts [sic] exercise of discretion, as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” d 77, 80–81 (Minn. App. 1985).
State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that the district court is not required to explain its decision to deny a departure request or its reasons for imposing the presumptive sentence, provided it considers the factors that weigh in favor of a departure).
State v. Johnson 831 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2013