Cited by

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

53 citing documents.

Omar Auquil Muhammad v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
23, 2011); -52 (Minn. App. 2009), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Eric James Reinbold 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 v. Manuel Richard Buck Minn. Ct. App. 2024
23, 2011); 353 (Minn. App. 2009) (criminal sexual conduct, burglary, and assault), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Lynn Baldwin Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Nathan Breyfogle 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 v. Jordan Latrell Jefferson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. John Edward Juneau 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 v. Robert Kent Pioro 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 v. Arturo Macarro Gutierrez 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.
State of Minnesota (A20-0305) (A20-0310) v. Dane Robert Mullen (A20-0305) (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 v. Milo Calvin Ojohn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In State v. Grampre , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Antoinette Miller 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 v. Thomas Joseph Incantalupo Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Grampre , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lemond Bingham Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Grampre , -54 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Edward Lataris Easton 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 v. Rick Alan Larson 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 v. Guy Robert Franklin Rabold Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Grampre , 7 review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Marin Parpaut 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 v. Mitchell John Antil Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Soto, d at 308 n.1; review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Sergio Alejandro Zapata 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 v. Shane Anthony Spicer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” -54 (Minn. App. 2009) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug.
Julian Onesimo Narvaez-Ramirez v. State of Minnesota 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 v. Jesse Lamee Motley 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