Cited by

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

295 citing documents.

State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Allen 482 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Allen 482 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Although the trial court generally applies the presumptive sentence, the court has discretion to depart when the offense involves “substantial and compelling circumstances.”
State v. Garrett 479 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Garrett 479 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(the parties themselves have no authority to determine the appropriate sentence).
State v. Herrmann 479 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Herrmann 479 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Guidelines I. Because these purposes will not be achieved if judges fail to follow the guidelines in the “general” case, a sentencing court should use the presumptive sentence unless the particular case involves “substantial and compelling circumstances.” Minn. Sent.
State v. Pearson 479 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Pearson 479 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
d at 454 (if record supports findings that substantial and compelling circumstances exist, appellate court will not modify departure unless it has strong feeling sentence is disproportionate).
State v. Larkins 479 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Larkins 479 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
It denied the motion, and in a a departure cannot be based solely upon a plea agreement.
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Hart 477 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Yanez 469 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Yanez 469 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
II The trial judge has discretion to depart from the presumptive sentence under the guidelines if the offense involves “substantial and compelling circumstances.” Minn.Sent.Guidelines II.D; ().
State v. Coley 468 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Coley 468 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Pieri 461 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Pieri 461 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Kaul 457 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Kaul 457 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Ballweber v. State 457 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Ballweber v. State 457 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Synnes 454 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Synnes 454 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Although we are concerned about the result in this case, we do not feel we are in a position to create an exception to Williams
State v. Hysell 449 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hysell 449 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Murr 443 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Murr 443 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. VanWert 438 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. VanWert 438 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Morrison 437 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Morrison 437 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Schenk 427 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Schenk 427 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
see also Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.D.
State v. Fields 423 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1988
State v. Fields 423 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1988
State v. McElderry 422 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. McElderry 422 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
14, 1986) (-47 (Minn.1981)).
State v. Holland 421 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Doherty 419 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Doherty 419 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
the supreme court held that when substantial and compelling circumstances are present, the trial court “may” depart from the presumptive sentence.
State v. Myers 416 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 1987
State v. Frank 416 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Frank 416 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.D.
State v. Horoshak 415 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Horoshak 415 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The trial court has discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines if the offense involves “substantial and compelling circumstances.” Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.