Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rourke, 773 N.W.2d 913.

135 citing documents.

State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
922 (Minn.2009), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Particular cruelty “involves the gratuitous infliction of pain and cruelty of a kind not usually associated with the commission of the offense in ques *63 tion.” (quotations omitted).
State v. Borg 834 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2013
State v. Borg 834 N.W.2d 194 Minn. 2013
“The ability of the State to appeal is limited.”
State v. Borg 823 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Borg 823 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
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
State v. Robideau 817 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Robideau 817 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Before imposing an upward dura-tional departure, the district court must be satisfied that one or more factual circumstances exist to support a departure that is not embodied in the guilty plea, and must explain “why those circumstances create a substantial and compelling reason to impose a sentence outside the presumptive range.”
State v. Martinez-Mendoza 804 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Martinez-Mendoza 804 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
*6 For the State to appeal, there must “be a statute or court rule that permits the appeal, or the issue must ‘arise by necessary implication’ from an issue where the State’s right to appeal is expressly provided.” ().
Johnson v. State 801 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2011
Johnson v. State 801 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2011
Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011
Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011
“ ‘particular cruelty’ involves the gratuitous infliction of pain and cruelty ‘of a kind not usually associated with the commission of the offense in question.’ ” see also Webster’s Third International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged 1646-47 (2002) (defining the word “particular” as “distinctive *587 among others of the same kind,” “markedly unusual,” or “noteworthy as being peculiar”); The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Langu
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
The Minnesota Supreme Court’s supports this conclusion.
State v. Obeta 796 N.W.2d 282 Minn. 2011
State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Hannibal 786 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Hannibal 786 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Strok 786 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Strok 786 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“There must be a statute or court rule that permits the appeal, or the issue must arise by necessary implication from an issue where the State’s right to appeal is expressly provided.” (quotation omitted).
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. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Ahmed 782 N.W.2d 253 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
But in light of the supreme court’s regarding the determination of the particular cruelty aggravating factor, we reverse in part and remand for resentenc-ing.
State v. Mohamed 779 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Mohamed 779 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
guilty plea, and (2) an explanation by the district court as to why those circumstances create a substantial and compelling reason to impose a sentence outside the range on the grid.”
Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Carse v. State 778 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The supreme court’s resolves Carse’s arguments regarding the alleged jury-instruction errors.