Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Edwards, 774 N.W.2d 596.

174 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, ex rel., Branden Lee Pollard v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections 878 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.10 (Minn. 2009) (noting that, although the legislature’s clarification of a sentencing statute did not apply directly to this case because the crime was committed before the amendment’s effective date, the supreme court’s holding was “consistent with th[e] statutory clarification”).
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deontray Vershon Tate Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But “defendants may be sentenced separately for multiple convictions arising from the same behavioral incident if those convictions relate to multiple victims.”
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marcus Allen Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The Minnesota Supreme Court has “repeatedly held that the risk to bystanders is an appropriate factor for courts to consider when determining the seriousness of a crime.” (affirming upward departure when the assault “generated significant risk of bodily harm to a large number of people”).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Dennis Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Reynaldo Benitez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he district court may not base an upward departure on facts necessary to prove elements of the offense being sentenced.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Dennis Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines require that the district court’s stated reasons for departure be “substantial and compelling,” meaning that the facts “show[ ] that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Substantial and compelling circumstances demonstrate “that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those showing that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Raheem Michael Kemokai Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Raheem Michael Kemokai Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Substantial and compelling circumstances demonstrate “that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” d 596, 601 (Minn. 2009).
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
But if the district court’s reasons for departure are ‘improper or inadequate,’ the departure will be reversed.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those showing that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” (quotation omitted).
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellate courts determine whether “the reasons given for an upward departure are legally permissible and factually supported in the record.”
State of Minnesota v. Javonate James McNeal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javonate James McNeal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An appellate court determines whether “the reasons given for an upward departure are legally permissible and factually supported in the record.”
Tommie Relando Norwood v. State of Minnesota, Respondent./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Tommie Relando Norwood v. State of Minnesota, Respondent./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Abdirisak Dahir Jama v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Abdirisak Dahir Jama v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that “defendants may be sentenced separately for multiple convictions arising from the same behavioral incident if those convictions relate to multiple victims”).
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Guidelines 2.D.3.b.(1) (2012), it may not depart based on “facts necessary to prove elements of the offense being sentenced” or “facts that, while not necessary to satisfy the elements of the offense in question, were nonetheless contemplated by the legislature when it set the punishment for the offense being sentenced,”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Tuseth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Tuseth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 853 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Raul Perez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Raul Perez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those showing that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 853 N.W.2d 819 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. Jermaine Octavious Stansberry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Octavious Stansberry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
It is true that “the district court may not base an upward departure on facts necessary to prove elements of the offense being sentenced.”
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Hicks 837 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those showing that the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the offense in question.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Rushton 820 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2012