Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McLaughlin, 725 N.W.2d 703.

87 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Dalal Bayle Idd Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Semaj Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Semaj Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–14 (Minn. 2007) (stating that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a mid-trial continuance to procure an expert witness).
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Crowder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Crowder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (“[T]o constitute a mitigating factor in sentencing, a defendant’s impairment must be ‘extreme’ to the point that it deprives the defendant of control over his actions.”); -92 (Minn. App. 2003) (affirming a downward durational departure for a defendant who s
State of Minnesota v. Robert Castillo Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert Castillo Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Our review of the question whether Castillo’s sentence unfairly exaggerates his criminality is “guided by past sentences imposed on other offenders.” (quotation omitted); see also Vickla, d at 270 (stating that “appellate court[s] may consider, among other things, comparable sentences in departure cases to determine if a sentence is unjustifiably disparate”).
State of Minnesota v. Arteco Marvell Rhodes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arteco Marvell Rhodes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. Hope Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hope Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]o constitute a mitigating factor in 7 sentencing, a defendant’s impairment must be extreme to the point that it deprives the defendant of control over [her] actions.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mahle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mahle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A district court abuses its discretion by 3 imposing a sentence that “is disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Further, to be used as a mitigating factor at sentencing, “a defendant’s impairment must be extreme to the point that it deprives the defendant of control over his actions.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
We will not interfere with a district court’s sentencing decision “unless the sentence is disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotations omitted).
State v. Larson 788 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2010
State v. Larson 788 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2010
Generally speaking, “[t]he decision to grant or deny a continuance lies within the discretion of the district *31 court” and we “will not reverse the court’s decision unless the defendant shows that the denial of a continuance prejudiced him by materially affecting the outcome of the trial.”
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
See, (affirming two consecutive life sentences for the murder of two students); (holding that trial court abused its discretion in imposing concurrent sentences, as opposed to consecutive sentences, upon defendant who shot and killed three victims at close r
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Vang 774 N.W.2d 566 Minn. 2009
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
State v. Peterson 764 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 2009
State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Although we independently review whether an offense is a crime against a person for the purpose of imposing permissive consecutive sentences, id., *15 we will not disturb a district court’s imposition of permissive consecutive sentences for an offense properly deemed a crime against a person absent an abuse of discretion
State v. Perleberg 736 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Perleberg 736 N.W.2d 703 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
We will not interfere with this decision unless the sentence is “disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotation omitted).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by