Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re the Welfare of Jenkins, 304 N.W.2d 632.

16 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Isaac Gutierrez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
ict court also noted that Gutierrez had “no criminal history” and “had been a responsible hard-working member of our community.” But a “[d]efendant’s clean record could not be a factor in justifying departure because that factor, in the form of defendant’s criminal history score of zero, was already taken into account by the Guidelines in establishing the presumptive sentence.”
State v. Rund 896 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2017
(“A pronounced sentence for a felony conviction that is outside the appropriate range on the applicable Grid, including a stayed or imposed gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor sentence, is a departure from the guidelines.”)
State of Minnesota v. Harrison William Rund Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Guidelines 2.D.3.a.(3) (2014) (specifically excluding “[t]he voluntary use of intoxicants” as a factor to be considered at sentencing); (stating that a defendant’s voluntary intoxication at the time of the offense may not be used to justify a downward departure).
State of Minnesota v. Shannon Marie Kiesner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Guidelines 2.D.3(a)(3) (2012); (stating that a defendant's voluntary intoxication at the time of the offense may not be relied upon as a mitigating factor to justify a downward departure); (rejecting defendant’s argument that his extreme intoxication at the time of the offens
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Ronald Plessel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See id., 1.B.4.a; d 632, 634 (Minn. 1981) (noting that, under previous versions of the statutes and sentencing guidelines, a stay of imposition under section 609.135 is not a departure).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
We agree with the court of appeals’ reasoning, as far as it goes: “a defendant’s clean record does not by itself justify mitigation of sentence.” Trog, d at 31 (emphasis added)
State v. Beaty 696 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
II.C.04; (stating that when district court stays imposition of sentence, the duration of the sentence is not pronounced); (noting court that vacated stay of imposition was the “first court to actually sentence appellant”).
State v. Vahabi 529 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See, (trial court departed from presumptively stayed felony sentence by giving defendant a stayed one-year gross misdemeanor sentence).
State v. Bauerly 520 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
634 (Minn.1981) (citing Minn.Sent.
State v. Gaines 408 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Staten 390 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.D.
State v. Oka 356 N.W.2d 676 Minn. 1984
State v. Northard 348 N.W.2d 764 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Trog 323 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1982
State v. Kealy 319 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1982
State v. Johnson 314 N.W.2d 229 Minn. 1982
We affirm defendant’s which was filed after the sentencing in this case.