Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite STATE, CTY. OF HENNEPIN v. McClay, 310 N.W.2d 683.

76 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The sole aggravating factor submitted by the state was that Madison’s conduct “caused a greater- than-normal danger to the safety of other people.” (permitting an upward departure on a conviction arising out of a bank robbery because people present during the robber y feared for their safety).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A durational departure is justified where the conduct underlying the offense represents “a greater than normal danger to the safety” of other people, or where the conduct is significantly more serious than conduct typically involved in the commission of the crime.
Eugene Francis Cuypers, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
v. McClay, –86 (Minn. 1981) (affirming as modified identical sentences for codefendants because conviction offense, criminal history, and basis for upward departure was identical for both defendants); see also Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Reinol Godines Vergara, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. McClay , (“Where two sepa rately tried codefendants with identical criminal history scores are convicted of the same offense based on the same behavioral incident and the basis for departure in the two cases is identical, the extent of the departure should be identical in both cases.”); Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Although caselaw indicates that a sentencing disparity among similarly situated co- offenders may be a basis for sent ence reduction, we are aware of only one case in which the supreme court has reduced a sentence on that basis: State v. McClay, which Trevino cites.2 -86 (Minn. 1981) .
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
A sentencing court may depart upwardly when “the offense was particularly serious and represented a greater than normal danger to the safety of other people.” State 7 v. McClay
State v. Petersen 799 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Petersen 799 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Citing to State, which states that everyone is particularly vulnerable when faced with a gun, appellant argues that “every fetus is particularly vulnerable.” We disagree with this analogy.
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
al. And even if the aggravating circumstances are severe, we should find an abuse of discretion and reduce a sentence for uniformity’s sake when the departure results in a term that is longer than sentences for similar or more serious crimes, or longer than sentences imposed on the appellant’s coconspirators
State v. Mix 646 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Mix 646 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Valentine 630 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Valentine 630 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
rt’s sentence departure for first-degree criminal-sexual conduct where defendant terrified victim, forced victim to submit to various types of penetration, and subjected victim to gross and vile physical abuse, which included cutting her vagina, forcing her to stick pin into one of her nipples, hitting her gratuitously, choking her, and forcing her to ingest excrement and urine); (affirming district court’s sentence departure for aggravated robbery where defendants put more people in fear, kidna
State v. Morris 609 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Morris 609 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
the supreme court allowed a durational departure because looking at the overall course of conduct, the robbery was a more aggravated kind of armed robbery than the typical one, with defendants putting more people in fear, kidnapping one person, and assaulting several others during their escape.
State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
State v. Ford 539 N.W.2d 214 Minn. 1995
State v. Allen 482 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Allen 482 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Larkins 479 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Larkins 479 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
The sentencing court may upwardly depart durationally from the presumptive sentence when “the conduct underlying the offense was particularly serious and represented a greater than normal danger to the safety of other people.” State
State v. Anderson 463 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Anderson 463 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Because of the large number of people in the area and the number of shots fired, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that appellant’s conduct was “particularly serious and represented a greater than normal danger to the safety of other people.”
State v. Goulette 442 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1989
State v. Goulette 442 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1989
State v. Williams 414 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Williams 414 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Durational departure has been justified where the conduct underlying the offense represents a greater than normal danger to the safety of other people, or where the defendant’s conduct is significantly more serious than conduct typically involved in the commission of the crime
State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
State v. Mitjans 408 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1987
fear); (upholding upward departure in case involving kidnapping of 5-year-old girl from front yard in part because of emotional distress caused by defendant to the victim’s family); (upholding upward departure where defendant intentionally committed violent crime in front of children); (upholding departure in aggravated robbery case because more people were put in fear than in usual case).
State v. Doughman 404 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Doughman 404 N.W.2d 867 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Hodges 384 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hodges 384 N.W.2d 175 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Barber 372 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Barber 372 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Anderson 370 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Anderson 370 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Williams v. State 365 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Williams v. State 365 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Winchell 363 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 1985
State v. Winchell 363 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 1985
we upheld a departure in a robbery case because more people were put in fear than in the normal case.
State v. Schultz 362 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Schultz 362 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Anderson 356 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Anderson 356 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Jeno 352 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Jeno 352 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Section II.D.103.2.b.(2)