Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Zeimet, 696 N.W.2d 791.

49 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Chad Domonique Johnson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Strobel 921 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Zeimet , , 796 (Minn. 2005).
State v. Scovel 916 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2018
State v. Scovel 916 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2018
2.B.305; see also State v. Zeimet , , 796-97 (Minn. 2005) ("This court has also issued decisions aimed at avoiding potential for manipulation in the sentencing context.").
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Washington 908 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2018
State v. Washington 908 N.W.2d 601 Minn. 2018
State v. Maurstad , , 148 (Minn. 2007) (citing State v. Zeimet , , 793 (Minn. 2005) ).
State v. Ivy 902 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Ivy 902 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Larson 895 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Larson 895 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. A. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. A. K., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Michael Jepson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Michael Jepson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Kjeseth 828 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Kjeseth 828 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Rick 821 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Rick 821 N.W.2d 610 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Campbell 814 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
State v. Campbell 814 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
State v. Williams 771 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 2009
State v. Williams 771 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 2009
5 (observing that, absent evidence of sentence manipulation, “it is up to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission to determine how an offender’s prior record will be used in assessing the number of criminal-history points”).
State v. Johnson 770 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Johnson 770 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Gradishar 765 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Gradishar 765 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“The object of statutory interpretation is to determine and effectuate legislative intent[,]” and “[t]he ambit of an ambiguous criminal law should be construed narrowly according to the rule of lenity.” -94 (Minn.2005) (citation omitted).
State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
(reducing sentence to presumptive sentence under the sentencing guidelines).
State v. Netland 762 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 2009
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
We recognize that “[t]he ambit of an ambiguous criminal law should be construed narrowly according to the rule of lenity.”
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Clark 755 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
In achieving the sentencing guidelines goals of uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing, “substantial efforts have been made to avoid systematic manipulation.”
State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hager 727 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
According to the rule of lenity, “[t]he ambit of an ambiguous criminal law should be construed narrowly....”
State v. Holmes 719 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 2006
State v. Holmes 719 N.W.2d 904 Minn. 2006