Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In other words, a district court’s refusal to depart from the presumptive sentence would warrant reversal only in a “rare case.”
- State of Minnesota v. Misti Dawn Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A sentence within the guidelines range will be reversed only in a “rare case.”
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See State v. Kindem , (stating that, “while there may have been arguments for departing downward,” the decision to depart is discretionary).
- State of Minnesota v. Roger Lee Voss, III Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Roger Lee Voss, III Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Dayonne Marquis Lachapelle Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Dayonne Marquis Lachapelle Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A district court’s refusal to depart from the presumptive sentence would warrant reversal only in a “rare case.”
- State of Minnesota v. Irineo Ricardo-Cosme Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota v. Irineo Ricardo-Cosme
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(stating that, “while there 6 may have been arguments for departing downward,” the decision to depart is discretionary).
- State of Minnesota v. DeAngelo Cortez Ransom Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota v. DeAngelo Cortez Ransom
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Appellate courts “generally will not interfere with a sentencing court’s decision to impose a term within the presumptive sentence range.” (explaining that “it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of [a] refusal to depart”).
- State of Minnesota v. Tyler James Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota v. Tyler James Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We review a district court’s decision to impose a presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion and will reverse that decision “[o]nly in a ‘rare’ case.” ().
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We review a district court’s decision to impose a presumptive sentence for an abuse of discretion and will reverse that decision “[o]nly in a ‘rare’ case.” ().
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jermaine Louis Fleming, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jermaine Louis Fleming, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota v. Isaac Gutierrez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota v. Isaac Gutierrez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(holding that appellate courts will rarely disturb a district court’s refusal to depart).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See State v. Kindem , (stating that “while there may have been arguments for departing downward,” the decision to depart is discretionary).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We review a district court’s decision to impose a presumptive sentence for a clear abuse of discretion and will reverse that decision “[o]nly in a ‘rare’ case.” ().
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Because this is not the “rare case” requir ing reversal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hoberg’s request for a downward durational departure.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We review a district court’s decision to impose a presumptive sentence for a clear abuse of discretion and will reverse that decision “[o] nly in a ‘rare’ case.” (quoting State v. Kindem , ).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A district court’s refusal to depart is reversed only in a “rare case.”
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota v. Matthew Michael Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Michael Lewis
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
6 (), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2025
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025