Cited by

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

209 citing documents.

State v. Glaraton 425 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 1988
State v. Glaraton 425 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 1988
State v. Frank 416 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Frank 416 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Dixon 415 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Dixon 415 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Dircks 412 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Dircks 412 N.W.2d 765 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
*768 ANALYSIS A greater-than-double durational departure requires “severe aggravating circumstances.”
State v. Strommen 411 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Strommen 411 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Felix 410 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Graham 410 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Graham 410 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Felix 410 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Gaines 408 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Gaines 408 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Steinhaus 405 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Steinhaus 405 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Wickstrom 405 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Wickstrom 405 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Perez 404 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Perez 404 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
21, 1987); (generally the upper limit is double the presumptive sentence length, except where the facts are unusually compelling).
State v. Leonard 400 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Leonard 400 N.W.2d 206 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Mortland 399 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
State v. Mortland 399 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1987
(holding that generally when aggravating circumstances are present, the upward limit on a durational departure is double the maximum presumptive sentence duration), (holding that when aggravating circumstances are severe, the general limit adopted in the Evans
State v. Mortland 395 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Edmison 398 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Edmison 398 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Although generally the upper limit on an upward departure is twice the presumptive sentence, a greater departure is justified in “rare cases in which the facts are * * * unusually compelling.”
State v. Mortland 395 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the supreme court stated: [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. Mesich 396 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Mesich 396 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
A greater than double departure will be upheld only in “rare cases” in which the facts are “unusually compelling.”
Johnson v. State 393 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Johnson v. State 393 N.W.2d 376 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
1 This case does not involve a state of facts such that we may term it “unusually compelling.” the supreme court said: There may well be rare cases in which the facts are so unusually compelling that an even greater degree of departure will be justified.
State v. Stauffacher 380 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Stauffacher 380 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Edwards 380 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Sirek 374 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Sirek 374 N.W.2d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Dye 371 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Dye 371 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
(emphasis in original deleted).
State v. Pierson 368 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Pierson 368 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
At the sentencing hearing, which reversed this same trial judge.
Robinson v. State 366 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Robinson v. State 366 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Pince 358 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Pince 358 N.W.2d 435 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Rohda 358 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1984
State v. Pickett 358 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1984