State v. Leckington

How courts have described this case

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

• holding it was not an abuse of discretion for a court to place considerable emphasis on the nature of the offense so long as the court considered multiple factors when making the sentencing decision
• recognizing the sentencing court should “[w]eigh and consider all pertinent matters in determining proper sentence, including the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, defendant’s age, character and propensities and chances of his reform” (alteration in original
• finding a woman knowingly created a substantial risk when she left an intoxicated minor at her home without adult supervision
• affirming conviction under 726.6(1)(a) where the defendant left a severely intoxicated teenager who had fallen and hit his head “at her home without further adult supervision”
• finding the defendant’s “decision, to leave the boy in an unsupervised location rather than to provide necessary health care or at least supervision, was intentional and deliberate”
• finding no abuse of discretion where the district court “placed considerable emphasis on the serious nature of the crimes” but also “considered other factors pertinent to sentencing”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).