Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Grampre, 766 N.W.2d 347.

52 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See, (holding that “Grampre’s use of the knife is sufficient to support the finding of particular cruelty” during a sexual assault), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
23, 2011); 353 (Minn. App. 2009) (criminal sexual conduct, burglary, and assault), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A finding of particular vulnerability may be made when the presence of a child during the commission of a crime causes the victim to be particularly vulnerable by compromising the victim’s ability to flee.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
calls for resolving the legal question de novo.” Soto, d at 308 n.1; rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2010); rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
calls for resolving the legal question de novo.” Soto, d at 308 n.1; accord State v. Jackson , State v. Dentz , rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2010); rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
7 Gutierrez argues that we should consider this issue de novo, (“[W ]hether a particular reason for an upward departure is permissible is a questi on of law, which is subject to a de novo standard of review.”) We disagree.
A20-0310 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 347, 354 (Minn. App. 2009) (vacating one of two conviction s for first -degree criminal sexual conduct based on same incident) , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In State v. Grampre , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
calls for resolving the legal question de novo.” Soto, d at 308 n.1; accord State v. Jackson , State v. Dentz , Dillon v. State , review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010); review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Grampre , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Grampre , -54 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
calls for resolving the legal question de novo.” Soto, d at 308 n.1; accord State v. Jackson , State v. Dentz , review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010); State v. Grampre , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“But where the facts are established, the determination is a question of law subject to de novo review.” State v. Grampre , 8 (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Grampre , 7 review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The supreme court has interpreted section 609.04 to “bar[] multiple convictions under different sections of a criminal statute for acts committed during a single behavioral incident.” (citing cases); -54 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Soto, d at 308 n.1; review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Whether multiple offenses form par t of a single behavioral act is a question of fact, “[b]ut where the facts are established, the determination is a question of law subject to de novo review.” -54 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” -54 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Julian Onesimo Narvaez-Ramirez, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Thus, whether a reason for an upward departure is permissible is reviewed de novo, but the “district court’s decision to depart from the sentencing guidelines based on permissible grounds is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Grampre , , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
bmit to un wanted sexual contact “f its squarely within the statute’s prohibition of sexual assault by coercion”); (affirming criminal-sex ual-conduct conviction where defendant, “although neither using actual force nor verbaliz ed threats of force, intentionally created an atmosphere of fear” during sexual assault); (holding that defendant’s use of a knife during sexual assault “easily fits within th[e] definition of ‘force’” employed in criminal code related to criminal- sexual-conduct crimes)
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Klanderud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Klanderud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Ty-Yn Shakhaun Holley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ty-Yn Shakhaun Holley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
12 review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jackson, d at 357; review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010); review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “[a] district court must order the presumptive sentence provided by the sentencing guidelines unless there are ‘substantial and compelling circumstances’ to warrant an upward departure.” (quoting Minn. Sent.
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The issue whether a particular reason for an upward departure is permissible is a question of law, which is subject to a de novo standard of review.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Javonate James McNeal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javonate James McNeal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 151 (emphasis added); (“[T]he woman’s child was nearby at the time of the crime and compromised the woman’s ability to flee.”), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Under long-established caselaw, if a district court’s reasons for a departure are stated on the record, an appellate court must determine whether the stated reasons justify 4 the departure.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lee Closner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lee Closner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[I]f a district court’s reasons for a departure are stated on the record, an appellate court must determine whether the stated reasons justify the departure.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Robideau 817 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Robideau 817 N.W.2d 180 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“[I]f a district court’s reasons for a departure are stated on the record, an appellate court must determine whether the stated reasons justify the departure.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“[I]f a district court’s reasons for a departure are stated on the record, an appellate court must determine whether the stated reasons justify the departure.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“[W]hether a particular reason for an upward departure is permissible is a question of law, which is subject to a de novo standard of review.” review denied (Minn. Aug.