Cited by

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

196 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Wayne William Leistico Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Michael Ellingson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jay Michael Ellingson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
cf. Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 , 116 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Departures from the presumptive sentence are justified only when substantial and compelling circumstances are present in the record.”
State of Minnesota v. Gary Richard Wessman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gary Richard Wessman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brian Jeffrey Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brian Jeffrey Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Departures from the presumptive sentence are justified only when substantial and compelling circumstances are present in the record.”
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Richard Beying Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Richard Beying Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lee Closner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lee Closner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(explaining that prior to 2005 the presumptive range was 15% and that changes to the guidelines resulted in a range of 35%).
State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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 tha
State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011
Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
at 850 ; -58 (Minn.2008) (noting that a departure cannot be based on uncharged criminal conduct and that section 609.035 prohibits cumulative punishment for conduct that constitutes more than one offense).
State v. Robideau 796 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2011
State v. Robideau 796 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2011
Vickla v. State 793 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 2011
Vickla v. State 793 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 2011
See, ("Appellate courts do have the authority to modify a sentence on many grounds, including that the sentence is inconsistent with statutory requirements, Minn. Stat. § 244.11 , subd.
State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
1; -58 (Minn.2008) (noting that a departure cannot be based on uncharged criminal conduct and that section 609.035 prohibits cumulative punishment for conduct that constitutes more than one offense).
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Delk 781 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Delk 781 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Guidelines II, IV (noting that the presumptive sentence is determined by locating the appropriate cell of the sentencing guidelines grid containing ranges of months, “within which a judge may sentence without the sentence being deemed a departure”); , 359 n. 2 (Minn.2008) (“All three numbers in any given cell constitute an acceptable sentence....
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
(quoting Taylor, d at 588 ).
State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
because those cases did not squarely address the issue in this case.
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 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
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Their purpose “is to establish rational and consistent sentencing standards which reduce sentencing disparity and ensure that sanctions following conviction of a felony are proportional to the severity of the offense of conviction and the extent of the offender’s criminal history.” (quotation omitted).