Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6.

745 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“It would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”
State of Minnesota v. Basil Benna Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Basil Benna Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gary Richard Wessman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gary Richard Wessman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David John Ojeda Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David John Ojeda Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court may grant a downward departure only when it is warranted by “substantial and compelling reasons.”
State of Minnesota v. Brian Jeffrey Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brian Jeffrey Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”
State of Minnesota v. LaQuinn Jamul Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Richard Beying Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. LaQuinn Jamul Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Richard Beying Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”
State of Minnesota v. Tyrece Curtis Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tyrece Curtis Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kanishka Shereal Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kanishka Shereal Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal” of a presumptive sentence, and appellate courts should modify presumptive sentences only under “compelling circumstances,”
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tawnja Rene Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tawnja Rene Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that this court will modify a presumptive sentence only in a “rare case” with “compelling circumstances”), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).
Wells v. State 839 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Wells v. State 839 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Johnson 831 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Johnson 831 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Pegel 795 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Pegel 795 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In State v. Trog, the supreme court stated that “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family” are all factors that are relevant to a determination whether a dispositional departure is justified.
State v. Delk 781 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Delk 781 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Tucker v. State 777 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Tucker v. State 777 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Daniels 765 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Olson 765 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Olson 765 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Daniels 765 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Williams v. State 760 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Williams v. State 760 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating that “it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart”).
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008