Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ali, 895 N.W.2d 237.

36 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey William Boysen Minn. Ct. App. 2026
We will interfere with the district court’s sentencing decision only when the sentence is “disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 244.11, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Tamorris Mcquill Dempsey Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“ We review a district court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Frank John Rakowiecki Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Frank John Rakowiecki Minn. Ct. App. 2026
10 We will interfere with the district court’s decision on sentencing only when the sentence is “disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 244.11, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Chad Edward Danberry Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Carl Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Cody Michael Bauer Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Chaz Edwin Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Chaz Edwin Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 237, 246 (Minn. 2017) (declining to address a constitutional issue raised for the first time on appeal).
Minn. 2022
Release is not automatic because “pu blic safety and the interests of the victims’ families will be carefully considered before any eventual release could be approved.” State v. Ali , (Chutich, J., dissenting); see also Jackson v. State , n. 8 (Minn. 2016) (detailing statutory steps that must occur before supervised release of an offender is authorized).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
See State v. Ali , (holding that a constitutional issue raised for the first time on appeal to our court is forfeited).
State of Minnesota Minn. 2021
Minn. 2021
(holding an argument wa ived when not presented to the district court); see also Olson v. One 1999 Lexus , n.8 (Minn. 2019) (discussing th e difference between facial and as-applied due process challenges).
State of Minnesota v. Ramey James Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Christian Hamzah Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Davone Laquin Jordan Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Arizona v. Martin Raul Soto-Fong 474 P.3d 34 Ariz. 2020
Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Dayquan Jayru Rain Hodge Minn. Ct. App. 2020
An appellate court “will interfere with a district court’s sentencing discretion only when the sentence is disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anike Tatiaramika Jiles Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We will inter fere with the district court’s sentencing discretion only when the sentence is disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Ramon Ivy Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“We will interfere with the district court’s sentencing discretion only when the sentence is disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” State v. Ali , (quota tion and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Brent Carter, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
d 237 (Minn. 2017), cert.
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Armando Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This court reviews a district court’s 7 imposition of consecutive sentences for an abuse of discretion and will reverse only when a sentence “is disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Deshawn Devontae Lamar Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We review a district court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences for an abuse of discretion ,” and we will intervene when a sentence “is disproportionate to the offense or unfairly exaggerates the crimina lity of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Adolfo Gutierrez Avila, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We review a district court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Anthony John Sawina Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
State v. Ali , , 246 (Minn. 2017) (holding that the defendant forfeited his equal protection argument when he failed to raise the claim in the district court), cert.
State v. Helm 431 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State of Minnesota v. Devon Larry Green Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re C. S. N. 917 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re C. S. N. 917 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
As detailed in the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in State v. Ali , , 243 (Minn. 2017), cert.
Rochester City Lines Co. v. City of Rochester 913 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2018
Rochester City Lines Co. v. City of Rochester 913 N.W.2d 443 Minn. 2018
4 (limiting reply brief to new matter raised in respondent's brief); see also State v. Ali , , 247 n.9 (Minn. 2017) (holding that, where the State did not raise argument in its response brief, defendant could not raise it for the first time in his reply brief).
Minn. 2018
State v. Ali ( Ali II), cert.