Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): doing home exercises, resting, and experiencing headaches and other symptoms”; (3) the victim suffered an injury similar to a whiplash injury, which would make her more susceptible to reinjury; (4) the victim’s physician was unable to predict when she would be free from symptoms and told her to expect to return to therapy two times per year at a cost of approximately $300; and (5) the victim has endured “much pain, suffering, and fear.” The district court denied Colsch’s motion to reduce restitution and reinstated the remaining $7,665 of the restitution judgment. This appeal followed. ISSUE Did the district court err in ordering restitution that included noneconomic damages? ANALYSIS This issue is appealable as a matter of right. See State v. Whitledge, 500 N.W.2d 488, 489 (Minn.1993) (<HOLDING>). “Deciding whether a particular item of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court (B) holding defendant sentenced to term equal to maximum guidelines sentence under improperly calculated sentencing guidelines scoresheet was not entitled to be resentenced because defendant was habitualized such that sentencing guidelines score sheet was irrelevant and the sentence imposed was not illegal (C) holding when it is not clear that the sentencing judge would have imposed the same sentence if a lower sentencing range would have been available remand is required (D) holding that misdemeanor defendant may appeal sentence if sentencing issue is one that could have been raised by defendant before sentencing guidelines became effective in 1980 (E) holding that defendant entitled to resentencing if the sentence imposed under the unconstitutional 1995 sentencing guidelines would constitute an impermissible departure sentence under the 1994 guidelines
Output (English): holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court