Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660.

314 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Timothy Andrew Swan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Robert Dornsbach Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Zaki Mohamed Sugule Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Zaki Mohamed Sugule Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[Appellate courts] 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).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Andrew Swan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Robert Dornsbach Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A defendant’s particular amenability to probation justifies a district court’s decision to stay the execution of a presumptively executed sentence.” see also Soto, d at 308–09 (stating that “[the supreme court’s] consistent use of the words ‘particular’ and ‘particularly’ in this context is not accidental” and emphasizing that mere amenability to probation, as opposed to particular amenability to probation, cannot justify disposition
State of Minnesota v. Steven Andre Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Andre Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 “[Appellate courts] 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).
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “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) (alteration in original)).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-42 (Minn. 2000); see, d 660, 666 (Minn. 2006) (noting that the state failed to show that the possession of child 12 pornography offenses “took place at significantly different times or with significantly different criminal objectives”).
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
George Douglas Gant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 660, 664 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. John Jay Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Eduardo Cortez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Jay Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
It is only a “rare case” that “warrant[s] reversal of the refusal to depart.” (quotation omitted).
Eduardo Cortez, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “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)).
State of Minnesota v. Bob Matt Jaschke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bob Matt Jaschke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Peter William Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(vacating conviction and sentence for possession of child pornography when it was an included offense of dissemination of child pornography and arose from same behavioral incident as dissemination offense).
State of Minnesota v. Robert William Neft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert William Neft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Luis Guzman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James David Gertz, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James David Gertz, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Luis Guzman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
e district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a downward dispositional departure because substantial and compelling circumstances existed and appellant was a candidate for sex offender treatment and amenable to such treatment.2 We review a district court’s refusal to grant a dispositional departure from the sentencing guidelines for an abuse of discretion, and we will affirm the imposition of a presumptive 1 Because we conclude that K.A’s statement to her coworker is a prior c
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Wayne Eilertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Wayne Eilertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
Cf., (“particular amenability to probation”); (“particularly amenable to treatment in a probationary setting”); Trog, d at 31 (“particular amenability to *309 individualized treatment in a probationary setting”); Wright, d at 462 (“particular
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brian Jeffrey Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brian Jeffrey Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Wayne Eilertson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Wayne Eilertson Minn. Ct. App. 2014