DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

314 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Javier Zapien-Arreola Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Javier Zapien-Arreola Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    (vacating conviction and sentence for possession when it was an included offense of dissemination and arose from same behavioral incident as dissemination offense).
  • State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    (stating that if mitigating factors are shown, district court may, but is not required to, depart); d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006) (affirming denial of a request for departure despite defendant’s argument that Trog factors were present); Pegel, d at 253-54 (stating that the mere existence of mitigating factors does not require the district court to place a defendant on probation).
  • Wells v. State 839 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • Wells v. State 839 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    Finally, and most importantly, the presence of mitigating factors does “not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” (stating that an appellate court will not disturb the district court’s sentence if the district court refused to depart, even if there are reasons for departing downward).
  • State v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    In State v. Bertsch, the supreme court held that “possession of a pornographic work involving a minor is an included offense of dissemination of such a work.”
  • Vickla v. State 793 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 2011
  • Vickla v. State 793 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 2011
    2(b) (2006)....”); ("Appellate courts may vacate or modify a sentence on many grounds, including that the sentence is unreasonable or inappropriate, Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Holmes 778 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Holmes 778 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2010
    (in determining if an offense is a lesser-included offense under Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
    2(b) (2006), or that modification is “in the interest of ‘fairness and uniformity.’” ().