Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Walker, 913 N.W.2d 463.

154 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Damon Marvin Henning, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-69 (Minn. App. 2018) (concluding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dispositionally depart despite considering “evidence of factors that could have supported a departure if they had been substantial or compelling”).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-69 (Minn. App. 2018) (concluding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dispositionally depart despite considering “evidence of factors that could have supported a departure if they had been substantial or compelling”).
State of Minnesota v. Catherine Ann Skavlem-Short Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Catherine Ann Skavlem-Short Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1; see
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Raymond Bye Minn. Ct. App. 2023
And even if such circumstances are present, “[a] departure is not mandatory, and an appellate court will reverse a sentencing court’s refusal to depart only in a ‘rare’ case.” (quoting Kindem, d at 7).
State of Minnesota v. Trejuan Dominic Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1(e)(i); (explaining that a lesser-included offense is “a crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Carl Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“ For a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider both offender - and offense-related factors.” .
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Allen Owens, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Weston Marshal Voeltz Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Michael Paul Kuklok Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-69 (Minn. App. 2018) (concluding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dispositionally depart despite considering “evidence 5 of factors that could have supported a departure if they had been substantial or compelling”).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Edward Garrett Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Isaiah Antoine James Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Cha NMN Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Collin Charles Koerner Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Kelsey Anne Weidell Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1; see
State of Minnesota v. Robert Allen Mrozek Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Reversal is rare because even when circumstances are present that favor departure, “departure is not mandatory.”
State of Minnesota v. Ajoko Gaye Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Jacob Hunt Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A district court must pronounce a sentence within the presumptive sentencing range “unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2018) ; see also State v. Walker
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Scott Adams, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Julian Leon Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Allison Wesley Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State v. Walker , (citing Kindem, d at 7).
State of Minnesota v. Peter Jay Engen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In sum, the record reflects that the district court “considered evidence of factors that could have supported a departure if they had been substantial or compelling, but concluded that a departure was not warranted.”
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Braulio Barrios Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- 68 (Minn. App. 2018) (reversing and remanding to district court with instructions to vacate the formal adjudication of lesser-included offense, but not the finding of guilt regarding that offense).
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Lee Griffith Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018) (quoting Kindem, d at 7).
State of Minnesota v. Tashawn Antionette Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jared Devlin Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Davonte Michael Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Xanth Tyler Wilkins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(quoting Kindem, d at 7).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Charles Kalvoda Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Walker , (quoting Kindem, d at 7).
State of Minnesota v. Felix Hieu Imhoff Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018); Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1.
State of Minnesota v. Rolando Banda Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Fahid Nazir Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. William Clyde Grunwald Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(quoting Kindem, d at 7).
State of Minnesota v. Cree James Diver Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018) ().
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Monique Swart Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018); 4 (stating that the presence of a mitigating factor does not obligate a district court “to place defendant on probation”); Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Donald Raymond Guse Minn. Ct. App. 2022
But when considering whether to grant a downward dispositional departure, as the court did here, “a district court may consider both offender- and offense-related factors.”
State of Minnesota v. Cody Robert Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Walker , (citing Kindem, d at 7); see also , (considering that presence of mitigating factor does not obligate district court “to place defendant on probation”); Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. William Eugene Hale Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Walker , (M inn.
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Jacob Nohner Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those that make a case atypical .” .
State of Minnesota v. Duncan Nyanaro Osoro Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Cory Wiedeman Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Ronald Lewis Greer, Minn. 2022
More recently, the court of appeals has said that the word “merging” should be avoided when discussing counts because it does “not clearly indicate the disposition intended by the district court.” State v. Walker
State of Minnesota v. Tony James Hewitt Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Derek Steven Serbus Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Lee Tonnessen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Winston Eckman Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(citing Kindem, d at 7); see also State v. Wall , (stating that the presence of a mitigating factor does not obligate a district court “to place defendant on probation”); Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Lidio Roque Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“For a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider both offender- and offense-related factors.”
State of Minnesota v. Blake Scott Veen Minn. Ct. App. 2022