Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Olson, 765 N.W.2d 662.

145 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Da’Monte Si’Quan Lewis-Meghie Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Keng Cha Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Michael Everett Splittstoser Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Second, even if Splittstoser’s success in treatment were a mitigating factor that could establish a substantial and compelling reason to depart, the district court “is not required to do so.” -65 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. James Tyrone Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Vontrez Trevon Phelps Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 662, 664-65 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Phia Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Donald Arthur Merrill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 662, 664-65 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Lee Niemi Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Floyd Collins Josie, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“Only in a rare case will a reviewing court reverse a district court’s imposition of the presumptive sentence.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Randal Darrell Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Donald Arthur Zawchenuk Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Juan Antonio Soto, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Joseph Jesmer Minn. Ct. App. 2026
However, a district court is not required to depart “from a 5 presumptively executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation.” Jesmer argues that the district court abused its discretion by determining that there were no substantial or compelling reasons to support a downward dispositional departure.
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Allen Severtson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Lester Ray Wiley Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.”
State of Minnesota v. Dayonne Marquis Lachapelle Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Dayonne Marquis Lachapelle Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-65 (Minn. App. 2009) (noting that “the district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so”).
State of Minnesota v. Irineo Ricardo-Cosme Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Irineo Ricardo-Cosme Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Tyler James Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Tyler James Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 662, 664-65 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Jamison Franklin Wells Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Joel Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” State v. Olson , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Philip Kofi Itoka Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We review a district court’s decision to impose a presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion and will reverse that decision “[o]nly in a ‘rare’ case.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Lee Daniel Kruger Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Lee Daniel Kruger Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Terrell Garth, II Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Terrell Garth, II Minn. Ct. App. 2025
But “a defendant is not entitled to a reduction in his sentence merely because [his] co-defendant[s] received a lesser sentence.”
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Aaron Fierro Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We review a district court’s decision to impose a presumptive sentence for an abuse of discretion and will reverse that decision “[o]nly in a ‘rare’ case.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Steven Joseph Drahos Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Devin John Oelrich Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Kelvin Armando Figueroa-Millan Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Marquies Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jerdale Lewis Grace Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lindsay Marilyn Mayry Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We review a district court’s decision to impose a presumptive sentence for a clear abuse of discretion and will reverse that decision “[o]nly in a ‘rare’ case.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gene Hoberg Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State v. 9 Olson, -65 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Allen Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We review a district court’s decision to impose a presumptive sentence for a clear abuse of discretion and will reverse that decision “[o] nly in a ‘rare’ case.” (quoting State v. Kindem , ).
State of Minnesota v. Ashir Hassan Kimbrough Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Steven Eric Doan-Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
pleaded guilty.7 Although Doan-Hanson is not entitled to a reduced sentence merely because his co-defendant received a lesser sentence, we find his argument convincing, particularly in comparison to other similar offenders.
State of Minnesota v. Win Naing Aung Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Hardy Mondelus Galette Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.”
State of Minnesota v. Eric Alan Gramentz Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Afeez Adebisi Ogundero Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Phillip James Merrill Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 662, 664-65 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Anthony Steffano Minn. Ct. App. 2025
DECISION Steffano challenges the district court’s decisions not to impose downward dispositional departures.4 We review a district court’s decision not to impose a downward dispositional departure for a clear abuse of that discretion and “[o]nly in a ‘rare’ case will a reviewing court reverse a district court’s imposition of [a guideline] sentence.” ( (other quotation omitted) ).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Johnson Moliwulo Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Mandy Erin Hyland Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A district court has the discretion to grant a downward dispositional departure if the defendant is “particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.” -65 (Minn. App. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Fredi Amilcar Sun Chajon Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“ Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” State 12 v. Olson, (quotation omitted).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by