Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Abrahamson, 758 N.W.2d 332.

45 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-38 (Minn. App. 2008), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“[T]he presence of factors supporting departure does not require departure.”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
–38 (Minn. App. 2008), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Shante Cheriece Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shante Cheriece Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 332, 337-38 (Minn. App. 2008), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Reinert Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Reinert Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-38 (Minn. App. 2008), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Dennis John Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Dennis John Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-38 (Minn. 5 App. 2008), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Tarik Toyshawn Smith-Whitmore Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Tarik Toyshawn Smith-Whitmore Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Substantial and compelling circumstances [to support a durational departure] are present when the defendant’s conduct in the offense of 4 conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” -38 (Minn. App. 2008) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Soto, d at 308; rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Soto, d at 308; rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Mar.
A19-0218 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A district court’s departure d ecision will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to depart, and this court will reverse only if there is “a clear abuse of discretion.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A district court’s departure decision will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Abrahamson , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A d i s t rict court has broad discretion in deciding whether to depart from the sentencing guidelines, d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981), and we will only reverse if there is “a clea r abuse of discretion,” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are present when 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.” -38 (Minn. App. 2008) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[T]he presence of factors supporting departure does not require departure.”
Walter Johann Happel, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are present when the defendant’s conduct in the offens e of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” State v. Abrahamson , -38 (Minn. App. 2008) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Abrahamson , ( stating that “the presence of factors supporting [a dispositional] departure does not require departure”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Julian Onesimo Narvaez-Ramirez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Abrahamson , , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are present when 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 quest ion.” State v. Abrahamson , -38 10 (Minn. App. 2008) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Donald Beulah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Donald Beulah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This court recently reiterated that “the presence of factors supporting departure does not require departure.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Steven Andre Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Andre Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2016
16, 2002); (stating that “a district court errs when it fails to consider valid departure factors”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. George Cornelius Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Cornelius Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are present when 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.” -38 (Minn. App. 2008) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are present when 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.” -38 (Minn. App. 2008) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Catherine Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miranda Catherine Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
[and] the defendant’s age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” (citations omitted), review denied (Minn. 31 Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Daniel David Ojanen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel David Ojanen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Tawnja Rene Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tawnja Rene Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But “the presence of factors supporting departure does not require departure.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See, 523 (Minn.1984) (affirming a more-than-double dura-tional departure where the defendant forced the victim to commit fellatio and to submit to cunnilingus and sexual intercourse); -39 (Minn.App.2008) (holding that the variety of sexual acts to which the victim was exposed was a valid aggravating factor that supported an upward dura-tional departure for criminal sexual conduct), review denied (Minn. Mar.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by