Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Tucker v. State, 799 N.W.2d 583.

85 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Gideon Charles Arrington, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Guidelines 2.D.3.b.(2) (Supp. 2013); (noting that an upward sentencing departure based on particular cruelty is not an abuse of the district court’s discretion when the cruelty is not usually associated 4 with the relevant offense).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Dennis Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Dennis Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The “district court may depart from the presumptive guidelines sentencing range only if ‘there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a sentence outside the range on the grids.’” (quoting Minn. Sent.
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
10 on uncharged criminal conduct”); n.1 (Minn. 2011) (Anderson, J., concurring) (noting that “the Legislature statutorily overruled the restriction adopted in Jackson, in 2009, when the Legislature adopted Minn. Stat. § 244.10 subd.
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
For example, the supreme court concluded that the appellant did not engage in conduct more serious than a typical second-degree unintentional felony murder offense by fleeing the scene and abandoning the victim’s body.
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
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. Chad Loran Siegel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chad Loran Siegel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
11 district court may use particular cruelty as a basis for departure only when the cruelty associated with the crime for which the defendant was convicted is of a kind not usually associated with the commission of the offense in question.” d 583, 587 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeffery Dale Trevino Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[P]articular cruelty involves the gratuitous infliction of pain and cruelty of a kind not usually associated with the commission of the offense in question.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tony Don Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmed Shire Ali v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javonate James McNeal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javonate James McNeal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Appellate courts generally “review an upward departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.” –86 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“An upward departure will be reversed if the sentencing court’s articulated reasons for the departure are improper or inadequate and the evidence in the record is insufficient to justify the departure.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
“Particular” means “exceptional” or “[distinctive among others of the same group,” and “particularly” means “especially” or “specifically.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1285-86 (5th ed.2011); -87 (Minn.2011) (relying on the word “particular” to conclude that the aggravating factor of “particular cruelty” toward the victim means cruelty “of a kind not usually associated with the commission of the offense in question” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted
Ronald James Kettle v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ronald James Kettle v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Substantial and compelling 7 circumstances are those demonstrating that 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.” (quotations omitted); (“‘Substantial and compelling circumstances’ are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.”).
State v. Turrubiates 830 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Turrubiates 830 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“An upward departure will be reversed if the sentencing court’s articulated reasons for the departure are improper or inadequate and *623 the evidence in the record is insufficient to justify the departure.” (quotations omitted).