DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Olson, 325 N.W.2d 13.

199 citing documents.

  • State v. Lambert 388 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Lambert 388 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Anderson 388 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Anderson 388 N.W.2d 33 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Moylan v. Moylan 384 N.W.2d 859 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Cates 384 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Cates 384 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Lonergan 381 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Lonergan 381 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Soto 378 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Soto 378 N.W.2d 625 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Yant 376 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Layman 376 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Layman 376 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    App.1984), (); State v. Haas, 280 Minn. 197, 200 , ).
  • State v. Yant 376 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Nonetheless, the alternate sentences of two and one-half years on each count would be valid if there are mitigating factors to reduce the sentence below the mandatory minimum.
  • State v. Biederstedt 367 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Biederstedt 367 N.W.2d 84 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • LeZALLA v. State 366 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • LeZALLA v. State 366 N.W.2d 395 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    (quoting Grudnosky v. Bislow, 251 Minn. 496, 498 , ).
  • State v. Ritt 363 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Ritt 363 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    d *909 28, 31 (Minn.1982), we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in its disposi-tional departure.
  • State v. Solomon 359 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Solomon 359 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1984
    The trial court was aware of the holding of State *22 v. Olson, that a trial court may sentence without regard to the mandatory minimum term if mitigating circumstances are present.
  • State v. Atkins 355 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Atkins 355 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1984
    The trial court later reduced this, to 41 months, which is the normal presumptive sentence duration for aggravated robbery by a person with a criminal history score of two.
  • State v. Cerceo 354 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Cerceo 354 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1984
    Defense counsel urged the trial court to sentence him without regard to section 609.11, but the court refused and imposed the presumptive sentence.
  • State v. Montjoy 354 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Montjoy 354 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Lugo-Diaz 348 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Lugo-Diaz 348 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1984
    The trial court imposed and executed this sentence, denying a
  • State v. Corbin 343 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Corbin 343 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    State v. Haas, 280 Minn. 197, 200
  • State v. Johnson 342 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Johnson 342 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Frost 342 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Frost 342 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1983
    which made it clear that the trial court has a degree of discretion under *324 section 609.11 to sentence the defendant to other than a minimum of 3 years in prison (or 54 months under Guidelines).
  • State v. Feinstein 338 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Trott 338 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Heywood 338 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Heywood 338 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1983
    The trial court, decided on its own motion to sentence without regard to the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment specified in section 609.11.
  • State v. Trott 338 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Feinstein 338 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1983
    Finally, we held that the current version of section 609.11 — which allowed for sentencing in certain cases without regard to the mandatory term law if the prosecutor moved for it — violated the separation-of-powers doctrine.
  • State v. Abeyta 336 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Abeyta 336 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 1983
    we affirmed defendant’s conviction of assault with a dangerous weapon, reckless discharge of a firearm, possession of a sawed-off shotgun and possession of brass knuckles, because the trial court erroneously concluded that it had no choice under Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Williams 329 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Williams 329 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 1983
    We affirm defendant’s conviction
  • State v. Abeyta 328 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Abeyta 328 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 1983
    we gave the statute in question a saving interpretation, holding that the sentencing court, and not just the prosecutor, has the power under the statute to initiate sentencing without regard to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence.