Cited by

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

154 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jaren Joseph Dodds Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Lynn Jansen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Tywan George Christopher Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Walker , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michele Anne Reimann Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Walker , d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018).
State of Minnesota v. William Deshawn Paige Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Walker , Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Bobo, III Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“For a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider both offende r- and offense-related factors.”); see also, e.g., State v. Allen , (M inn.
State of Minnesota v. Earl Jay Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2021
As this court has made clear, a guilty verdict alone is not a “conviction.”
State of Minnesota v. Angel Gabriel Aviles Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating a district court may consider offense-related factors in deciding whether a dispositional departure is appropriate).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Ross Rudquist Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Xueyan Wang Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Earl Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Milo Calvin Ojohn Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Damon Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Reginald Fenion Coe Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 412, 418 (Minn. 2017) (holding that a district court may issue a dispositional departure when it finds that the offense is significantly less serious than the typical case); (“For a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider both offender - and offense-related factors.”); see also State v. Allen , (“Upward di spositional departures under the guidelines may be based on either offender - or offense -related aggrav
State of Minnesota v. David Scott Bothe Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Walker , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ronny Ray Oleson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Walker , (“ 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 warran ted.” (emphasis added)).
State of Minnesota v. Casey Jo Eggum Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those that make a case atypical.”
James Eugene Love v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Antoinette Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Walker , (citing State v Chaklos , ).
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Lee Hicks Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 463, 467 (Minn. App. 2018).
State of Minnesota v. Dane Michael Vandervoort Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Joseph Melius Minn. Ct. App. 2020
–69 (Minn. App. 2018) (“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. Aldray Devon Young Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Aretina Tiaira Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Walker , ( “For a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider both offender - and offense-related factors.”); see also, e.g. , State v. A llen, (“Upward dispositional departures under the guidelines may be based on either offender - or offense- relat
Antonio Xavier Daniels v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
As this court has explained, “A ‘merged’ or ‘combined’ conviction or sentence is not a permissible disposition under Minnesota law.”
State of Minnesota v. Josi Ann Adelman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jamahl Lorenzo Climmons Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A departure is not mandatory, and an appellate court will reverse a sentencing court’s refusal to depart only in a ‘rare’ case.” d 463, 468 (Minn. App. 2018) (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Rick Alan Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
2 “Counts, convictions, or sentences cannot ‘merge’ or ‘combine,’ and the district court should avoid using such unclear language during sentencing.” d 463, 469 (Minn. App. 2018).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Allen Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Roilan Garriga v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 463, 467 -68 (Minn. App. 2018).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Matthew Girling Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jose Salud Botello Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota (A18-1999) (A18-1957,) v. Torrance Lee Royster (A18-1957) (A18-1999) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A substantial and compelling circumstance is one that makes a case “atypical.” State v. Walker
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Armando Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Michael Alan Bunnell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, vs, Tyler Paul Wetzel Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those that make a case atypical.”
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Thomas Price Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 463, 467-68 (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. Ricky Thomas Cobb Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he 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.”).
Ernesto Torres Garcia v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Marin Parpaut Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Hallmark, ____ N.W.2d ____, ____, 2019 WL 2128253 , at *11 (Minn. May 15, 2019); State v. Walker
State of Minnesota v. Steven Wayne Culver Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Rian Lynn Thibeau Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Artes White Minn. Ct. App. 2019
6 –68 (Minn. App. 2018).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jon Schluessler Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Frank Quintero Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Walker , (“F or a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider both offender- and offense-related factors.”).
State of Minnesota v. Jason Ronald Stauffer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Walker , (reversing and remanding appellant’s conviction for a lesser-included charge, but “leaving the finding of guilt intact”).
State of Minnesota v. Abdurahman Abdella Mama Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Eli Jermel Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
664-65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a def endant is particularly amen able to probation, but is not required to do so.”).
State of Minnesota v. DeAntae Demond Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those that make a case atypical.” State v. Walker

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by