DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

295 citing documents.

  • State v. Sherwood 341 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
  • State v. Sherwood 341 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
    “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.’ Thus, in Part II-D of the Guidelines, the Commission states that the judge ‘shall’ use the presumptive sentence ‘unless the individual case involves subst
  • State v. Back 341 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Back 341 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1983
    the Guidelines state that when substantial and compelling circumstances are present, the judge “may” depart.
  • State v. Frey 340 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
  • State v. Frey 340 N.W.2d 346 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
    the Guidelines state that when substantial and compelling circumstances are present, the judge “may” depart.
  • State v. Moore 340 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Heywood 338 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Heywood 338 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1983
    Thus, we upheld a refusal to stay execution on the basis of evidence that the defendant was particularly unamenable to probation.
  • State v. King 337 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 1983
  • State v. King 337 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 1983
    the first decision of this court interpreting the Sentencing Guidelines, we upheld an upward departure (longer sentence and refusal to stay execution) based on strong evidence that the defendant in that case had treated the victim in a particularly cruel way and that the defendant was particularly unamena
  • State v. Abeyta 336 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Abeyta 336 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1983
    the Guidelines state that when substantial and compelling circumstances are present, the judge “may” depart.
  • State v. Gross 332 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Gross 332 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Hines 330 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Gartland 330 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Hines 330 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1983
    the Guidelines state that when substantial and compelling circumstances are present, the judge “may” depart.
  • State v. Gartland 330 N.W.2d 881 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Schmit 329 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1983
  • Jackson v. State 329 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1983
  • Jackson v. State 329 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Schmit 329 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Norton 328 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Norton 328 N.W.2d 142 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Kraft 326 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Kraft 326 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1982
    the Guidelines state that when substantial and compelling circumstances are present, the judge “may” depart.
  • State v. Trog 323 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Trog 323 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1982
    the first decision of this court interpreting the Sentencing Guidelines, we upheld an upward departure (longer sentence and refusal to stay execution) based on strong evidence that the defendant in that case had treated the victim in a particularly cruel way and that the defendant was particularly unamena
  • State v. Womack 319 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Womack 319 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1982
    With respect to the durational departure, where we upheld a durational departure from the presumptive term for kidnapping because, during the kidnapping, the defendant treated the victim “in a particularly cruel way, driving her around for 2 hours in a wild fashion and subjecting her to psychological terror and gross physical and sexual abuse.” 3
  • State v. Flynn 313 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Flynn 313 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Kindem 313 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Kindem 313 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 1981
    the Guidelines state that when substantial and compelling circumstances are present, the judge “may” depart.
  • State v. Wright 310 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Wright 310 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1981
    the first decision of this court interpreting the Sentencing Guidelines, we upheld an upward departure (longer sentence and refusal to stay execution) based on strong evidence that the defendant in that case had treated the victim in a particularly cruel way and that the defendant was particularly unamena
  • State v. Leibfried 309 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Leibfried 309 N.W.2d 36 Minn. 1981
    On remand, the trial court, in determining whether to depart
  • State v. Schantzen 308 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Schantzen 308 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1981
    : “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.” Id.
  • State v. Park 305 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Park 305 N.W.2d 775 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Bellanger 304 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Bellanger 304 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 1981
    Recently, in affirming a decision to depart, we summarized the approach taken by the Sentencing Guidelines, and summarized in detail the principles embodied in the Guidelines and purposes to be served by the Guidelines.