Cited by

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

754 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Peter Jay Engen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“This means that the [district] court has broad discretion and that [appellate courts] generally will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Lee Griffith Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A district court may depart from the presumptive sentence only when there are “identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to 4 support a departure.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2018)
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Herman Wheeler Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Tashawn Antionette Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Dejahn Akeem Wiley-Hunt Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jared Devlin Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Xanth Tyler Wilkins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A district court may depart from the presumptive sentence in the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines “when substantial and compelling circumstances are present.” accord Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2018).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Charles Kalvoda Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A district court may depart from the presumptive sentence only when there are “identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2020)
State of Minnesota v. Jason Michael Slattum Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Felix Hieu Imhoff Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Dontae Deshaun White Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Mubarak Osman Musse Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Abraham Palma Hernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. William Clyde Grunwald Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cree James Diver Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018) ().
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Monique Swart Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Diedrich Allen Middleton Minn. Ct. App. 2022
applicable caselaw is the well-developed caselaw—consisting of opinions issued both before and after Cermak and Womack—that an appellate court “generally will not interfere with a sentencing court’s decision to impose a term within the presumptive sentence range.” Delk, 8 d at 428
State of Minnesota v. Cody Robert Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Lejuan Walter Hyde Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Omar Castillo Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Jacob Nohner Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Duncan Nyanaro Osoro Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”
State of Minnesota v. Samson Odey Finch Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Cory Wiedeman Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“[T]he Guidelines state that when substantial and compelling circumstances are presen t, the judge ‘may’ depart.” State v. Kindem
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Robert Kent Pioro Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The supreme court stated that— and other opinions expressing a gene ral reluctance to reverse a presumptive sentence—an appellate court may modify a presumptive sentence if a defendant, “because of his physical condition, is particularly unam enable to this form of incarceration at this time.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Edward David Stahlmann Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Winston Eckman Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thurmon Keltner Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Tracy Dean Bullock Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Travis James Zander Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Scott Hurst Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Peter Devonn Crosby v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Devon Deshawn Gordon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Braxton Monte Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Brian John Leonida Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Elmo Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Tony Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The supre me court has repeatedly stated that “we do not ‘intend entirely to close the door on appeals from refusals to depart.’” d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006) ().
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Dwayne Leckner Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Rex Christopher Kersey Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Bobo, III Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Randy Joel Bade Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Terrell Elijah Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Angel Gabriel Aviles Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Ross Rudquist Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”
State of Minnesota v. Bobbie Christine Bishop Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We only rarely reverse the imposition of a guidelines sentence, and will not modify it “absent compelling circumstances,”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Charles Clinton Ames Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Eugene Bilges Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Michael Andre Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Reginald Fenion Coe Minn. Ct. App. 2021