Cited by

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

314 citing documents.

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
State v. Johnson 831 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
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.”
State v. Pegel 795 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Pegel 795 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(stating that if district court “considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence,” an explanation for denying departure is not required).
State v. Webber 382 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Webber 382 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
This court has often stated that a sentencing court “has broad discretion and that we generally will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion.” -81 (Minn.Ct.App.1985).