Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Thompson, 720 N.W.2d 820.
- Vickla v. State 778 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
- State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-
State v. Grampre
766 N.W.2d 347
Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Jackson, d at 356 - *353 57
- State v. Stanke 764 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2009
-
State v. Stanke
764 N.W.2d 824
Minn. 2009
3 But, we have held that it is inappropriate for the court to 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 v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
-
State v. Rodriguez
754 N.W.2d 672
Minn. 2008
“If the reasons given [for departure] are improper or inadequate, but there is sufficient evidence in the record to justify the departure, the departure will be affirmed.” Losh, d at 896 (quoting McIntosh, d at 8 ); -31 (Minn.2006).
- State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
-
State v. Jones
745 N.W.2d 845
Minn. 2008
Blakely , however, “has clarified that the fact finding function must be done by the jury, unless waived by the defendant.” (Hanson, J., dissenting).
- State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008