Cited by

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

754 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Stevevontae Dellshawn Champion Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Only in a ‘rare’ case will a reviewing court reverse imposition of a presumptive sentence.” (), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Trevor Daniel Schweitzer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Monroe Leshawn Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
see also Delk, d at 428 (“This court will generally not exercise its authority to modify a sentence within the presumptive range absent compelling circumstances.” (quotation omitted)).
Marcus Kendrick Jones v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The supreme court opined in dicta that “it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Robert Tichich Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Christopher London Walker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that “it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart”); accord State v. Solberg , (“We review a district court’s decision to depart from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.”).
State of Minnesota v. Arnanza Lamontez Cork, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Ramiro Alejandro Pena Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A d i s t rict court has broad discretion in deciding whether to depart from the sentencing guidelines, d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981), and we will only reverse if there is “a clea r abuse of discretion,” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Thomas Cobb Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Raymond Kost Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota (A18-1579) (A18-1569) v. William Cornell Walker (A18-1569) (A18-1579) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981); see also Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Scott David Auginaush Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Meng Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Zong Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Scott David Quall Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
An appellate court cannot simply substitute its judgment for that of the district court, and, absent a clear abuse of discretion, appellate courts “generally will not interfere.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985) (“The reviewing court may not interfere with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion, as long as the re cord shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determin
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Victor Mouchka Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Kindem , (“[T]he Guidelines state that when substantial and compelling circumstances are present, the judge may depart.
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Kent Michael Hamre Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Erick Carl Longo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Karl Edward Henze Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Merrill Newlun Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Scott Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jason Nathaniel Oliger Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Melanie Ann Quick Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. William Issac Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Rick William Olsen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(noting that even when substantial and compelling circumstances exist, the district court “may” depart); State v. Olson , 765 –65 (Minn. App. 2009) ( stating that “the district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is particularly amenab
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lamarr Ousley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2.D.1 (2015); see also State v. Kindem
State of Minnesota v. James Ernest Piere Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, vs Phillip Julius Butenhoff, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Jentzen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Reversal of a district court’s refusal to depart from a presumptive sentence should occur only in a “rare case.” State v. Kindem
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Michael Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
We will reverse a district court’s refusal to de part from the presumptive sentence only in a “rare case.”
State of Minnesota v. John Thomas Elliott Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Kindem , see Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Lester Corey Bates Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Guidelines 2.D.1 (2016 ); see also State v. Kindem
State of Minnesota v. Benson Wahagi Mwangi Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Guidelines 2.D.1.c (2016) (stating that a departure mu st be supported by “substantial and compelling circumstances”)
State of Minnesota v. Corey Edward Fisherman Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Brock Dupree Lam Seawright Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Kindem , , 7 (Minn. 1981).
State of Minnesota v. Boe Michael Tankersley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Ranzy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.” State v. Kindem
State of Minnesota v. Alex Gordon Sillerud Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Philip Dreyer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Felix Velasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
It is a “rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Dante Vaughn Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“[T]he Guidelines state that when substantial and compelling circumstances are present, the judge ‘may’ depart.”).
State of Minnesota v. Damion Aharon Vasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Brian Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo Ramirez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Emmanuel Ballard Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We will reverse a distri ct court’s refusal to depart from the presumptive sentence only in a “rare case.”