Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Park, 305 N.W.2d 775.

41 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(explaining that PSI may inform but does not determine departure analysis).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
State v. Allen 706 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2005
State v. Allen 706 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2005
State v. Christopherson 500 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Christopherson 500 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Cf. Carpenter, d at 128 (probation officer and psychologist recommended executed sentence); -03 (Minn.1982) (defendant had history of deviant sexual conduct involving children and was diagnosed as poor candidate for treatment); (probation officer recommended against probation and defendant had prior history of treatment failure); (Minn.App.
State v. Larkins 479 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Larkins 479 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(compelling circumstances also required for dispositional departure).
State v. Lubitz 472 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1991
State v. Lubitz 472 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1991
State v. Holland 421 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Halverson 373 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Halverson 373 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Higginbotham 348 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1984
State v. Higginbotham 348 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1984
State v. Chase 343 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Chase 343 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
the court relied in part upon the recommendation of a probation officer and the defendant’s refusal to accept that he had a problem or needed treatment in affirming a dispositional departure.
State v. Ott 341 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 1984
State v. Ott 341 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 1984
State v. King 337 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 1983
State v. King 337 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 1983
To the same effect on una-menability
State v. Gross 332 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1983
State v. Gross 332 N.W.2d 167 Minn. 1983
Jackson v. State 329 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1983
Jackson v. State 329 N.W.2d 66 Minn. 1983
State v. Trog 323 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1982
State v. Trog 323 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1982
To the same effect on una-menability
State v. Womack 319 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1982
State v. Womack 319 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1982
in determining unamenability to probation “Each case must be considered on its own * * *.” Factors bearing on this determination include the recommendation of the probation agent, the defendant’s prior record under supervision, the defendant’s apparent willingness to cooperate on probation, and anyth
State v. Hagen 317 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1982
State v. Hagen 317 N.W.2d 701 Minn. 1982
State v. Johnson 316 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1982
State v. Johnson 316 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 1982
We affirm the dispositional departure because the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that defendant is una-menable to probation
State v. Flynn 313 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1981
State v. Flynn 313 N.W.2d 389 Minn. 1981
State v. Rott 313 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1981
State v. Rott 313 N.W.2d 574 Minn. 1981
State v. Wright 310 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1981
State v. Wright 310 N.W.2d 461 Minn. 1981
To the same effect on unamena-bility