Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Evans, 311 N.W.2d 481.

209 citing documents.

State v. Williams 608 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2000
State v. Williams 608 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2000
7 As to the durational departures, in State v. Evans we held 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. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
(explaining that for court to impose more than double the presumed sentence, unusually compelling circumstances must exist).
State v. Spain 590 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1999
State v. Spain 590 N.W.2d 85 Minn. 1999
State v. Beard 574 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Beard 574 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Behl 573 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Behl 573 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
The trial court has articulated sufficient bases for departure, while remaining within the assumed ceiling of double the presumptive sentence
State v. Hanson 572 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1997
State v. Hanson 572 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1997
this court held that "generally" when aggravating circumstances are present, the upper limit on a durational departure is double the maximum presumptive sentence duration.
Cooper v. State 565 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Cooper v. State 565 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Perkins v. State 559 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1997
Perkins v. State 559 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1997
This court, however, has followed a general rule that when aggravating factors justify upward departure, “the upper limit will be double the presumptive sentence length.”
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
Rairdon v. State 557 N.W.2d 318 Minn. 1996
State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. VanZee 547 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(crimes generally warrant only double departures); , 94 n. 1 (Minn.1987) (maximum sentence is that proscribed by law).
State v. VanZee 547 N.W.2d 387 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
The normal limit on an upward departure is double the presumptive sentence, but an even greater departure may be warranted where the facts are “unusually compelling.”
State v. Murphy 545 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1996
State v. Murphy 545 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1996
State v. Wilkinson 539 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Wilkinson 539 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Christie 506 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1993
State v. Christie 506 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1993
As an example, which held that a dura-tional departure could be no more than double the presumptive sentence under the sentencing *300 guidelines unless the situation was "unusually compelling.” Id.
State v. Halvorson 506 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Halvorson 506 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Rachuy 502 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1993
State v. Rachuy 502 N.W.2d 51 Minn. 1993
State v. Pearson 479 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Pearson 479 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Weaver 474 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1991
State v. Weaver 474 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 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
State v. Anderson 463 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Anderson 463 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hayes 456 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hayes 456 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Johnson 450 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1990
State v. Johnson 450 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 1990
State v. Goulette 442 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1989
State v. Goulette 442 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 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. Lomax 437 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1989
State v. Lomax 437 N.W.2d 409 Minn. 1989
(generally limiting durational departure to double the presumptive sentence duration).