Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers, 869 N.W.2d 893.

20 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. John Chester Hageman, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. John Chester Hageman, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 819, 822 (Minn. App. 2014), aff’d
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
see, e.g., Solberg, d at 626- 627 (rejecting an argument that using coercion to commit third- degree criminal sexual conduct was less serious than using force when both satisfy the stat ute).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
26, 1985); (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing upward where the attack was “unprovoked and seemingly motivated by a desire to be violent simply for the sake of violence ,” which “differ[ed] from the allegedly typical assault cases cited”), aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Meyers , (reviewing length of sentencing departure); State v. Vang , (reviewing decision to impose consecutive sentences).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[T]he Legislatur e, through the repeat offender aggravating factor, has expressly determined that recidivism for particular felonies [(those which injure victims)] is a valid basis for an upward sentencing departure.” d 893, 900 (Minn. 2015).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A district court should consider the severity of the offender’s conduct in determining whether to grant a downward dispositional departure, Soto, d at 313, so long as it distinguishes between acts that are elements of the offense and those tha t make the offense more severe than usual, State v. Meyers , .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Still, Fry argues on appeal that, the supreme court held that subdivision 5a(a)(3) requires that a district court rely on specific facts to justify an upward departure.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See e.g. , State v. Meyers , (“[F]acts considered by the Legislature in determining the severity of th e offense being sentenced cannot serve as a basis for departure.”); (holding that conduct underlying one conviction cannot be used to support an upward departure in anothe
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Kirby 899 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2017
State v. Kirby 899 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2017
See Minn. Stat. § 609.095 (a) (2016)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Guidelines 2.D.1); (“A sentencing court has no discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating factors are present.” (quotation omitted)), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Lee Hicks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Lee Hicks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellant also asserts that to interpret the statute as requiring only a victim- injury incident would go against State v. Meyers, which requires “a prior conviction for a specified offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Guy Anthony Keezer, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Guy Anthony Keezer, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
the supreme court considered an aggravated sentence based on the repeat-offender aggravating factor.