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. Evans, 311 N.W.2d 481.

209 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    The supreme court has held that, “in a case in which an upward departure in sentence length is justified, the upper limit will be double the presumptive sentence length.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Dylan Thomas Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota v. Dylan Thomas Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    “[G]enerally in a case in which an upward departure in sentence length is justified, the upper limit will be double the presumptive sentence length.” (emphasis omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    d 481, 483 (Minn. 1981).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    t I (top of the box 18 presumptive sentence with 4 criminal histor y points) and 344 months on count three (double top of the box presumptive sentence with artificial 0 criminal history score).”9 The supreme court has held that “generally in a case in which an upward departure in sentence length is justified, the upper limit will be double th e presumptive sentence length.” State v. Evans
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    (stating that “in a case in which an upward departure 4 in sentence length is justified, the upper limit will be double th e presumptive sentence length”).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    The supreme court has stated that, as a general rule, an upward durational departure that is 6 otherwise proper will not be reversed so long as it is no more than “double the presumptive sentence length.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    And because it is not clear that the district court applied the rule of State v. Evans , which generally limits an upward durational departure to double the presumptive -sentence length , we reverse appellant’s sentence for first-degree assault and remand for resentencing.
  • Minn. 2020
    A. First, we must address Barthman’s request that we clarify how State v. Evans , should apply to the current sentencing guidelines.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    (“[G]enerally in a case in which an upward departure in sentence length is justified, the upper limit will be double the presumptive sentence length.”).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    And w e generally will not reverse an upward d urational departure so long as it is no more than “ double the presumptive sentence length.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    As a general rule, an upward durational departure that is otherwise proper will not be reversed so long as it is no more than “double the presumptive sentence length.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Even when 5 such circumstances exist, a double upward departure “is generally the ‘upper limit’ of a sentencing departure.” Ayala-Leyva, d at 558 (quoting State v. Evans , ).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • Adalberto Sevilla, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “[G]enerally in a case in which an upward departure in sentence length is justified, the upper limit will be double the pres umptive sentence length.” (emphasis omitted); (“We have found no cases in which an appellate court has held that adequate gr ounds to depart exist but that the district court abused its discretion by extending the sentence up to twice its pres umptive term.”)
  • State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Dakari Michael Coles 862 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Ronald Paul Collum Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Ronald Paul Collum Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    Generally, a district court cannot order a sentence longer than the upper departure limit of “double the maximum presumptive sentence length.” ().
  • State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    Abuse of Discretion Generally, “in a case in which an upward departure in sentence length is justified, the upper limit will be double the presumptive sentence length.”
  • Vickla v. State 793 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 2011
  • Vickla v. State 793 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    Generally, “in a case in which an upward departure in sentence length is justified, the upper limit will be double the presumptive sentence length.”
  • Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Vickla v. State 778 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Vickla v. State 778 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    The supreme court held that the district court was justified in departing from the presumptive sentence but, 1 reduced Rott’s sentence to a double durational departure.
  • State v. Hodges 770 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Hodges 770 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2009
    Although not raised by Hodges, we note that the imposition of a minimum term of imprisonment of 240 months amounts to a greater-than-double-dura-tional sentence, which must be supported by aggravating factors that are “severe.” ( (concluding that “generally in a case in which an upward departure in sentence length is justified, the upper limit will be double the presumptive sentence length.”)).
  • State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    -40 (Minn.2005); Reece, d at 824
  • State v. Stanke 764 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Stanke 764 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2009
    (concluding that “generally in a case in which an upward departure in sentence length is justified, the upper limit will be double the presumptive sentence length.”).
  • State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Thompson 720 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Thompson 720 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2006
    We have consistently held that an upward sentencing departure is appropriate if the trial court's reason for departure was based on the factors specified in the sentencing guidelines and if the extent of the departure was "limited to that justified by the reason for departure.”
  • State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
  • Neal v. State 658 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2003
  • Neal v. State 658 N.W.2d 536 Minn. 2003
    In support of his position, and other case law developed to interpret the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.
  • State v. Simmons 646 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Simmons 646 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2002