Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Garcia, 302 N.W.2d 643.

295 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Isaac Gutierrez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Isaac Gutierrez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Underlying the Guidelines is the notion that the purposes of the law will not be served if judges fail to follow the Guidelines in the ‘general’ case.” (
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
10 (affirming upward departure when defendant treated kidnap vic tim in particularly cruel way by driving her around for two hours “in a wild fashion” and subjecting her to psychological terror and physical abuse)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(the parties themselves have no authority to determine the appropriate sentence).
State of Minnesota v. Dionte Gosa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dionte Gosa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Although a court may depart from the guidelines when substantial and compelling circumstances are present, “it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.” (concluding in a case where the district court did not depart where there were arguments for departure “the determination whether or not to depart was clearly a discreti
Townsend v. State 834 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2013
Townsend v. State 834 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2013
(internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Eller 780 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Eller 780 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(allowing for reversal of sentences when the record does not establish the existence of any proper aggravating factors); (reviewing a sentencing decision, based partially on valid sentencing considerations, for a clear abuse of discretion), overruled on other grounds, , 777 n. 4 (Minn.1996).
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Petschl 688 N.W.2d 866 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Saue 688 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Saue 688 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
295 , 828 P.2d 70, 72 (1992) (describing departure as an “option” if aggravating factors present); (holding that, under the guidelines, the judge “may” depart if aggravating factors are present), (noting that, even if mitigating factors are present, the court is not required to depart).
State v. Hanf 687 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hanf 687 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(holding that under the guidelines the judge “may” depart if aggravating factors are present); (Minn.App.
State v. Rourke 681 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Rourke 681 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
13, 1991); -73 (Minn.App.1984) (threats of death and the cutting off victim’s finger were particularly cruel); (concluding that psychological terror is an aggravating factor supporting upward departure).
Hutchinson v. State 679 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 2004
Hutchinson v. State 679 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 2004
this court’s first sentencing guidelines decision, we stated that a plea agreement attempting to limit sentence duration did not create a “substantial and compelling circumstance” justifying a departure from the guidelines.
Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
3 “Underlying the [guidelines is the notion that the purposes of the law will not be served if judges fail to follow the [guidelines in the ‘general’ case.”
Asfaha v. State 665 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2003
Asfaha v. State 665 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2003
State v. Lindsey 654 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Lindsey 654 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Sentencing courts should use the presumptive sentence from the sentencing guidelines unless the particular case involves “substantial and compelling circumstances.” Minn. Sent.
State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
The decision to depart from a presumptive sentence under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines is within the district court’s discretion, but when a district court departs from the presumptive sentence, it must articulate “substantial and compelling reasons” justifying the departure, Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.D
State v. Simmons 646 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Simmons 646 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
A sentencing court “shall use the presumptive sentence unless the individual case involves substantial and compelling circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Misquadace 644 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2002
State v. Misquadace 644 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2002
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines I; -47 (Minn.1981) (describing sentencing guidelines grid, which factors into the sentence criminal history score and the severity level of offense).
State v. Schmit 601 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1999
State v. Schmit 601 N.W.2d 896 Minn. 1999
State v. Munger 597 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Munger 597 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Spain 590 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1999
State v. Spain 590 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1999
State v. Jones 587 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Jones 587 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-47 (Minn.1981) (applying de novo review to district court’s interpretation of sentencing guidelines); cf. United States v. Jones, 87 F.3d 247, 248 (8th Cir.1996) (de novo review of district court’s construction and interpretation of federal sentencing guidelines).
State v. Beard 574 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Beard 574 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(the trial court’s decision to depart will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion).
State v. Behl 573 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Behl 573 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Folkers 562 N.W.2d 5 Minn. Ct. App. 1997