State v. Boltz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that an abuse of discretion occurs “when only a single, nonspecific factor is identified by the sentencing court” (citations omitted)
• stating that while a sentencing 5 court “has a duty to consider all the circumstances of a particular case,” it is not “required to specifically acknowledge each claim of mitigation urged by a defendant”
• stating the sentencing court is not “required to specifically acknowledge each claim of mitigation urged by a defendant”
• stating court was not “required to specifically acknowledge each claim of mitigation urged by a defendant”
• explaining the duty to consider pertinent sentencing factors does not require court to “specifically acknowledge each claim of mitigation urged by a defendant”
• noting the sentencing court is not “required to specifically acknowledge each claim of mitigation urged by the defendant”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).