Cited by

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

745 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
And “it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Guidelines 2.D.1 ; see also S tate v. Kindem
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Scott Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Lee Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Scott Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that it is the “rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart”).
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Lee Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.” d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981).
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Ervin Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dimitri Devonte Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Artaveus Shawntez Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dimitri Devonte Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”).
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Ervin Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Artaveus Shawntez Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We “will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.” (quotation omitted); (“[W]e believe that it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Casa Roby Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tetyang Puok Juate-Yout Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tetyang Puok Juate-Yout Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Scott Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Scott Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An appellate court “will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or 2 durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.” (quotation omitted); d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981) (expressing belief “that it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart”).
State of Minnesota v. Walter David Tischer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Walter David Tischer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bailey Jordan Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Michael Kokette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Michael Kokette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bailey Jordan Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Indeed, “it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”
State of Minnesota v. Ammanuel Ray Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ammanuel Ray Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dionte Gosa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Donald Beulah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Donald Beulah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dionte Gosa Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Although a court may depart from the guidelines when substantial and compelling circumstances are present, “it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.” (concluding in a case where the district court did not depart where there were arguments for departure “the determination whether or not to depart was clearly a discretionary decision”).
State of Minnesota v. Donald Kalib John Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Kalib John Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Duane Meredith Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Allen Maurice Moffett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Duane Meredith Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Allen Maurice Moffett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur Barnes Minn. Ct. App. 2016