Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Thompson, 720 N.W.2d 820.

64 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ahmed Hussein Ibrahim Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State v. Thompson , –28 (Minn. 2006) (citing Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2026
James Ervin Owen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In general, “[a] waiver made in compliance with Rule 26.01, subdivision 1(2)(a), meets the knowing, voluntary, and intelligent requirement.”
William Larry Armstrong v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
William Larry Armstrong v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The supreme court granted review
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Alan Shaney Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1(b) (2018); (“[E]lements of an offense cannot be used as aggravating factors to impose an upward sentencing departure for that same offense.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. TS’John Thomas Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- 28 (Minn. 2006) (citing Minn. R. Crim.
Dean Robert Hoversten v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
It cannot be based on factors already accounted for as elements of the current offense, -30 (Minn. 2006), or “unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct,”
State of Minnesota v. Remona Lysa Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Lee Tonnessen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that sentencing courts may not use elements of an offense as an aggravating factor during sentencing).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Richard Schwab Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“[A] sentencing court may not base an upward durational departure on factors that the legislature has already taken into account in determining the degree of seriousness of the offense.”).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Elliott Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See, -31 (Minn. 2006) (affirming finding a high degree of sophistication and planning in a theft by swindle where finance manager st ole money by manipulating terminated employees’ payroll accounts and immediately removing the ac counts in order to conceal the scheme), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Aretina Tiaira Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Thompson , 830 -31 (Minn. 2006) (reversing the court of appeals and affirming a double upward durational departure sentence of 114 months for nine theft -by-swindle convictions relating to embezzlement of $600,000); State v. Rott , -75 (Minn. 1981) (upholding departure, but reducing sentence to 24 m
Tevin Marcel Bellaphant v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-28 (Minn. 2006) (citing Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Robert Kerrell Levell Dawson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Allen Bockwitz Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Tarey Marquan Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Cody Douglas Thurstin Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See e.g. , State v. Meyers , (“[F]acts considered by the Legislature in determining the severity of th e offense being sentenced cannot serve as a basis for departure.”); (holding that conduct underlying one conviction cannot be used to support an upward departure in another conviction); State v. Erickson , (holding that prior criminal offenses could not be a grounds fo r departure because they were already factored into criminal-his
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Rayshawn Calloway Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1(2)(a), “meets the knowing, voluntary, and intellig ent requirement.” State v. Thompson
Earl Anthony Fry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Greenough 915 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Greenough 915 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Thompson , , 827 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Renae Dawn Kramer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Ivy 902 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Ivy 902 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that impermissible double-counting arises when the defendant is convicted of and sentenced for multiple counts and the district court uses the conduct underlying one count to support the aggravated factor on another count); see also State v. O’Hagan, (Minn.App.
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Jade Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
( n.4 (Minn. 2006)), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Israel Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“[T]he district court is not permitted to impose an upward departure if the sentence will unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct, or punish a defendant twice for the same conduct.”) ; see also State v. Thompson , (concluding that “double counting” a fact as both proof of an element of theft by swindle and an aggravating factor is impermissible).
State of Minnesota v. Jack Warren Nomeland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jack Warren Nomeland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
at 238; d 820, 827, 831 n.4 (Minn. 2006) (using “enhancement” and “aggravating” to describe factors that serve as basis for sentencing departure).
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Lee Hicks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Braden Jay Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Braden Jay Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Lee Hicks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(d 820, 831 n.4 (Minn. 2006)), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez 879 N.W.2d 324 Minn. 2016
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that defendant may waive his right to a sentencing hearing).
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 869 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 869 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2015
impliedly overrule Peake and Lindsey.
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The supreme court has stated, “[A] defendant’s waiver of the right to a jury determination of aggravating sentencing factors must be made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.”
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(permitting waiver of the right to a jury determination of aggravating sentencing factors as long as waiver is made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently).
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 853 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 853 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
to support the proposition that an element of an offense cannot be used as an aggravating factor.
Vickla v. State 793 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 2011
Vickla v. State 793 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 2011
828-31 (Minn.2006) (affirming a double-durational departure sentence for the offense of theft-by-swindle on the ground that the facts supported the conclusion the crime was a major economic offense, which is an aggravating factor under the Sentencing Guidelines); State v. Rott, 313 *-75 (Minn.
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Vickla v. State 778 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2010