Cited by

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

745 citing documents.

State v. Wilkinson 539 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Wilson 524 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Wilson 524 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Krebsbach 524 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Krebsbach 524 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(a review of case law reveals only one ease in which an appellate court disturbed a presumptive sentence).
State v. Anderson 520 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Anderson 520 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Williams 510 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Williams 510 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Trong Kim Huynh 504 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Trong Kim Huynh 504 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
State v. Rachuy 495 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Rachuy 495 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Bale 493 N.W.2d 123 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Bale 493 N.W.2d 123 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
While a judge has “broad discretion” in deciding upon a sentence, a judge’s power to depart from the presumptive sentence is not unfettered.
State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Hopkins 486 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Hopkins 486 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Allen 482 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Allen 482 N.W.2d 228 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
DISCUSSION Standard of Review Sentencing is generally within the broad discretion of the trial court, and this court “generally will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion.”
State v. Elting 480 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Elting 480 N.W.2d 152 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
28, 1987); (guilty plea).
State v. Larson 473 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Larson 473 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Anderson 463 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Anderson 463 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
as support for his argument that his case is one of the “rare cases” in which such departure would be appropriate.
State v. McCalister 462 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. McCalister 462 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Olson 459 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Olson 459 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Kaul 457 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Kaul 457 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hayes 456 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hayes 456 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Brown 455 N.W.2d 65 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
“The trial court has broad discretion [in sentencing] and [an appellate court] generally will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion.”
State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hysell 449 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hysell 449 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Hennum 441 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1989
Followed State v. Hennum 441 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1989
State v. Bicek 429 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. O'BRIEN 429 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. O'BRIEN 429 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1988