Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jackson, 749 N.W.2d 353.

197 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Aretina Tiaira Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
see also D illon v. State , 5 (Minn. App. 2010) (observing that a de novo standard of review applies “when reviewing whether a particular reason for an upward departure is permissible”) review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).
State of Minnesota v. Dean Robert Minnerath Minn. Ct. App. 2020
4 constitute an acceptable sentence based solely on the of fense at issue and the offender’ s criminal history score —the lowest is not a downward departure, nor is the highest an upward departure.” State v. Jackson , n.2 (Minn. 2008) .
State of Minnesota v. Cameron Pierre Richmond, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“All three numbers in any given cell [on the sentencing guidelines grid] constitute an acceptable sentence based solely on the of fense at issue and the offender’ s criminal history score —the lowest is not a downward departure, nor is the highest an upward departure.” n.2 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Marquey Birgans Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Sophia Wang Navas Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Jackson , review denied (Minn. May 11, 2010) (observing that a de novo standard of review applies “when reviewing whether a particular reason for an upward departure is permissible”).5 Wang Navas raises two challenges to the validity of the
Minn. 2020
Barthman requests that we “limit any departure to twice the ‘presumptive sentence’ ” instead of “twice the upper end of the presumptive sentence range.” we declined to revisit the Evans rule in the wake of changes to the sentencing guidelines.
State of Minnesota v. Stevevontae Dellshawn Champion Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“All three numbers in any given cell [on the sentencing guidelines grid] constitute an acceptable sentence based solely on the offense at issue and the offender’s criminal history score —the lowest is not a downward departure, nor is the highest an upward departure.” State v. Jackson , n.2 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Allen Bockwitz Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Jackson , d 353, 357 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Khalil Malik Watson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Minnesota law is clear that “a ny sentence within the presumptive range for the convicted offense constitutes a presumptive sentence.” review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010) ; d 353, 359 n.2 (Minn. 2008) (noting that each cell i n the sentencing grid contains three numbers and “[a]ll three numbers in any given cell constitute an a cceptable sentence”).
State of Minnesota v. Erick Carl Longo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
n.2 (Minn. 2008) (“All three numbers in any given cel l constitute an acceptable sentence .
State of Minnesota v. Mitchell John Antil Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Soto, d at 308 n.1; review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Gonzalez Sotelo Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 670 (emphasis added); (“Burglary is a serious crime, and punishment is allowed for both the burglary and the crime committed in the dwelling.”) (Emphasis added).
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jackson , , 360 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Philip Dreyer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jackson , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan George Oliver Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Octavio Peralta Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A17-0222 State of Minnesota v. Emanuel Lydell Collier, and Emanuel Lydell Collier, vs. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Guidelines 2.D.1 (2013 ); see State v. Jackson , n .2 (Minn. 2008) .
State of Minnesota v. Jessten Gordon Grover Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2(b) (2016), or if “modification is in the interest of fairness and uniformity,” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Antonyo White Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“All three numbers in any given cell [of the sentencing- guidelines grid] constitute an acceptable sentence.” n.2 (Minn. 2008).
State v. Rund 896 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2017
State v. Rund 896 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2017
“To maintain uniformity and proportionality, departures from the presumptive guidelines sentence are discouraged.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Brad Jules Krekelberg Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Even in the presence of aggravating or mitigating factors, “the court may exercise discretion to depart but is not required to depart,” , because “departures are justified only in exceptional cases.”
State of Minnesota v. Dwayne Alan Case Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Greene Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 883 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 883 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2016
5a(b), establishes that the Legislature enacted the statute as a
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ishamel Portwood Middlebrook Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Omar Taha Yaseen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Omar Taha Yaseen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Guidelines 4 (2014); n.2 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Muniz Bustos Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.2 (Minn. 2008) (noting that under the sentencing guidelines presumptive sentences are determined using a grid system, that each cell on the grid contains three numbers, and that “[a]ll three numbers in any given cell constitute an acceptable sentence”).
State of Minnesota v. Ian Christopher Mitchell 881 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ian Christopher Mitchell 881 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (“The phrase ‘any other crime’ means a crime that requires proof of different statutory elements than the crime of burglary.” (quoting section 609.585)); (“Burglary is a serious crime, and punishment is allowed for both the burglary and the crime committed in 8 the dwelling.” (citing section 609.585)); (stating that section 609.585 “contains an exce
Andre LeBlanc v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Andre LeBlanc v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rico Patrick Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Morris Gaye Kayee v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles O’Neal Darby, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016