Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Williams v. State, 361 N.W.2d 840.

253 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Boon Wa Thao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Boon Wa Thao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 882 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 882 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2016
d 840, 844 (Minn. 1985).
State of Minnesota, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Glenn Kevin Hazley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Glenn Kevin Hazley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“If reasons supporting the departure are stated, this court will examine the record to determine if the reasons given justify the departure.”
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Even “[i]f the reasons given [for a sentencing departure] are improper or inadequate, but there is sufficient evidence in the record to justify departure, the departure will be affirmed.”
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
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Crowder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Krystal Elizabeth Alwin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Krystal Elizabeth Alwin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
However, even if the departure reasons relied upon by the district court are improper or inadequate, we may affirm if “there is sufficient evidence in the record to justify departure.”
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Crowder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1 1 The supreme court has questioned the continuing validity of the Williams framework for upward durational departures.
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 869 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 869 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Misty Dawn Dyrdahl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Misty Dawn Dyrdahl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
the Minnesota Supreme Court provided a framework for reviewing departure decisions by the district court.
State of Minnesota v. Parnard Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Parnard Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that if sentencing court’s reasons for departure are improper or inadequate, the departure may be affirmed if there is sufficient evidence in the record to justify the departure).
State of Minnesota v. Baruch Kefa Nieznanski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Baruch Kefa Nieznanski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 the Minnesota Supreme Court provided a framework for reviewing departure decisions by the district court, 3 That decision provides: 1.
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that we can examine the record to determine whether the evidence supports departure even when the reasons provided do not justify departure).
State of Minnesota v. Leroy Lamar Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leroy Lamar Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jared Armand Cobb Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jared Armand Cobb Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leann Bobleter Sargent Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leann Bobleter Sargent 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
–44 (Minn. 1985) (concluding that district court’s statements, read into record, regarding reasons for consecutive sentencing “will suffice as a departure report”); (“[A] departure from the guidelines will not be precluded for lack of a departure r
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
Conversely, a departure is an abuse of discretion if the court’s reasons are “ ‘improper or insufficient’ ” and there is “ ‘insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure.’ ” ().
Townsend v. State 834 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2013
Townsend v. State 834 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2013
State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The supreme court, in Getter, stating that Williams set out a “clear” rule: “absent a statement of the reasons for the sentencing departure placed on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.” Geller d at 517 .
State v. Petersen 799 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Petersen 799 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The supreme court has explained that reviewing for abuse of discretion requires us to determine whether the district court’s reasons for the departure are “improper or inadequate.” ().
State v. Eller 780 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Eller 780 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(allowing for reversal of sentences when the record does not establish the existence of any proper aggravating factors); (reviewing a sentencing decision, based partially on valid sentencing considerations, for a clear abuse of discretion), overruled on
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by