DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

253 citing documents.

  • State v. Lámar 474 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    (this court will examine record to see whether the trial court's reasons justify departure).
  • State v. Coley 468 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Coley 468 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    the supreme court adopted guidelines for reviewing departures from presumptive sentences: 2.
  • State v. McCalister 462 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. McCalister 462 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Pieri 461 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Pieri 461 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Wittman 461 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Wittman 461 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Synnes 454 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Synnes 454 N.W.2d 646 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated: If no reasons for departure are stated on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.”
  • In Re the Welfare of B.W. 454 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • In Re the Welfare of B.W. 454 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.D; -44 (Minn.1985).
  • State v. Ferguson 441 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Ferguson 441 N.W.2d 508 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Thieman 439 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Thieman 439 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1989
    Because no reasons for departure were stated on the record at the time of sentencing, no subsequent departure is allowed under this court’s
  • State v. Carter 424 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Carter 424 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Fields 423 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Fields 423 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 1988
    if, as here, the sentencing court gave a reason for the departure but the reason is not adequate to sustain the departure, the departure nonetheless may be sustained on appeal if there is sufficient evidence in the record to establish that there is another basis for the departure.
  • State v. Fields 420 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Fields 420 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    (“If the reasons given are improper or inadequate, but there is sufficient evidence in the record to justify departure, the departure will be affirmed.”).
  • State v. Doherty 419 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Doherty 419 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    the supreme court held that the failure to file a report will not be fatal where the record sets forth the trial court’s reasons for the sentencing departure.
  • State v. Thompson 414 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Thompson 414 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    adopted prospectively a rule providing in part: If no reasons for departure are stated on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.
  • State v. Gunderson 407 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Gunderson 407 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Peterson 405 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Peterson 405 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    In ruling that the untimely report could not be considered in reviewing the departure, we specifically relied on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s
  • State v. Hatton 405 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hatton 405 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Hamilton v. State 398 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Hamilton v. State 398 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    ANALYSIS I Retroactivity of Guidelines Modification Hamilton contends the issue of automatic retroactivity of guidelines modifications, should be reexamined because the procedure selectively used in applying the guidelines changes was constitutionally defective.
  • State v. Butenhoff 392 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Butenhoff 392 N.W.2d 619 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Robinson 388 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Robinson 388 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Stauffacher 380 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Stauffacher 380 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    “If the reasons given justify the departure, the departure will be allowed.”
  • State v. Pendzimas 379 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Pendzimas 379 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    the supreme court stated: In the past this court has been lenient in enforcing the literal requirements for a departure report.
  • State v. Vikeras 378 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Vikeras 378 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    The State does not attempt to justify the maintenance of appellant’s original sentence () on any of the reasons cited by the trial court presumably because none of the cited reasons are valid departure factors.
  • State v. Scott 373 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Scott 373 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Robinson v. State 366 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1985