Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jones, 745 N.W.2d 845.

100 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Similarly, the appellant was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct based on evidence that he raped a 16- year-old girl who was dying of a drug overdose.
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
“ ‘Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.’” Tucker, d at 586 (emphasis omitted) ().
State of Minnesota v. Baruch Kefa Nieznanski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Baruch Kefa Nieznanski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But while uncharged or dismissed offenses cannot form the basis for an upward departure, no authority states that a district court cannot consider the conduct underlying other offenses when imposing a presumptive sentence.
State of Minnesota v. Chad Loran Siegel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chad Loran Siegel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines were created to assure uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing.” d 845, 848 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Javonate James McNeal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javonate James McNeal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
3 “Departures are warranted only when substantial and compelling circumstances are present.”
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
(stating that a statutory amendment authorizing cumulative punishment for certain crimes, amounting to an exception to the general prohibition of such punishment for conduct relating to the same behavioral incident, “reflect[s] legislative determinations concerning specific conduct that is eligib
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lee Closner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lee Closner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Specifically, Hicks cites Minnesota Statutes section 609.502, subdivision 1 (2006), which states that “[w]hoever interferes with the body or scene of death with intent to mislead the coroner or conceal evidence is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.” Hicks is correct that “[departures cannot be based on uncharged or dismissed offenses.”
State v. Turrubiates 830 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Turrubiates 830 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Turrubiates is also correct that a district court may not base a sentencing departure on the “elements of the underlying crime.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Robideau 817 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Robideau 817 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011
Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that ‘the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Misquadace, d at 69 ).
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
(quotations and citations omitted).
State v. Robideau 796 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2011
State v. Robideau 796 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2011
The question presented to the district court when considering a sentencing departure is whether the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was “ ‘significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.’” (quoting Misquadace, d at 69 ).
State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“The guidelines provide a nonexclusive list of aggravating factors that may be used as reasons for departure.” see also Minn. Sent.
State v. Mohamed 779 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Mohamed 779 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
State v. Hodges 770 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2009
State v. Hodges 770 N.W.2d 515 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
the supreme court reiterated the “boundaries” of a “proper departure” by identifying four types of improper grounds for a departure.
State v. Daniels 765 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Daniels 765 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Vance 765 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2009
State v. Vance 765 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2009
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that ‘the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.’ ” ().
State v. Stanke 764 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2009
State v. Stanke 764 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2009
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(noting that pre-Blakely, if the reasons stated by the sentencing court were improper or inadequate, appellate courts independently examined the record to determine if sufficient evidence justified the departure; post -Blakely, appellate co
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
ANALYSIS “The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines were created to assure uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
Pre-Blakely, when the reasons stated on the record for a departure were improper or inadequate, we independently examined the record to determine whether there was sufficient evidence “ ‘to justify departure’ for legitimate reasons.” (citation omitted).