Cited by

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

745 citing documents.

State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
Guidelines II.D.; (“It would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”).
State v. Jones 733 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Jones 733 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Bertsch 707 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2006
State v. Bertsch 707 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2006
While we have stated that we do not “intend entirely to close the door on appeals from refusals to depart,” we have emphasized that “it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Rourke 681 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Rourke 681 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bendzula 675 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bendzula 675 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See, e.g., Spain, d at 89 (reducing a triple upward departure to the double upward departure that "[a]s a general rule, [is] the maximum upward departure in sentence length''); cf, , 891 (Minn.App.2003) (affirming downward dura-tional departure, 75 of 150 months (), to determine that “this court generally will not interfere with the exercise of [district court] discretion”).
State v. Martinson 671 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Martinson 671 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Bollin 670 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Bollin 670 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(holding that a presumptive sentence will be reversed only in a “rare case”).
State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-8 (Minn.1981) (supreme court upholding district court’s refusal to depart downward where a guideline sentence was imposed).
State v. Dominguez 663 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Dominguez 663 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Sanchez-Sanchez 654 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Sanchez-Sanchez 654 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, e.g., Misquadace, d at 72 (sentencing court must list reasons for departing from presumptive sentence); (sentencing court “must articulate substantial and compelling reasons” justifying departure from presumptive sentence under guidelines); (unless district court finds substantial and compelling circumstances warranting departure from presumptive sentence, court is to order presumptive sentence).
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. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
DeShay argues that the district court should have granted his request for downward departure because he played a minor role in the conspiracy.
State v. Mendoza 638 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Oberg 627 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Oberg 627 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Santiago v. State 617 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Santiago v. State 617 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Kenard 606 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2000
State v. Kenard 606 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2000
State v. Donnay 600 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Donnay 600 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Jackson 596 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Jackson 596 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Sentencing is within the broad discretion of the trial court, and this court “generally will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion.”
State v. Pelawa 590 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Pelawa 590 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Foss 554 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Evenson 554 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Evenson 554 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Carter 545 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Carter 545 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(emphasis added) (citation omitted).
State v. Wilkinson 539 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1995