Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Stanke, 764 N.W.2d 824.
- State of Minnesota v. Raul Perez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Raul Perez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers
853 N.W.2d 819
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When aggravating circumstances are present, the district court has discretion to depart, and this court reviews a district court’s departure decision for abuse of discretion
- Rew ex rel. T.C.B. v. Bergstrom 845 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 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
- 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
- State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Mohamed 779 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
State v. Mohamed
779 N.W.2d 93
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
that the *98 victims of this offense would necessarily be children.” Generally, a victim may be considered “particularly vulnerable due to age, infirmity, or reduced physical or mental capacity, which is known or should have been known to the offender.” (quotation omitted).
- Tucker v. State 777 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- Tucker v. State 777 N.W.2d 247 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
Although not raised by Hodges, we note that the imposition of a minimum term of imprisonment of 240 months amounts to a greater-than-double-dura-tional sentence, which must be supported by aggravating factors that are “severe.” ( (concluding that “generally in a case in which an upward departure in sentence length is justified, the upper limit will be double the presumptive sentence length.”)).