Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Spain, 590 N.W.2d 85.

121 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Rund 896 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2017
State v. Rund 896 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2017
Nevertheless, we afford the district court “great discretion in the imposition of sentences” and review decisions to depart from the sentencing guidelines only for “an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[A] sentencing court has no discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating factors are present.”
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
As indicated above, “the circumstances justifying a departure that more than doubles a presumptive sentence are extremely rare.”
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
This court affords district courts great discretion in the imposition of sentences, and “cannot simply substitute our judgment for that of the [district] court.”
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Thus, “a [district] court has no discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating factors are present.”
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Robert Dornsbach Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Robert Dornsbach Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“We afford the trial court great discretion in the imposition of sentences and we cannot simply substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.”).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A] sentencing court has no discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating factors are present.”
State of Minnesota v. Sunil Vidyadhar Sapatnekar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sunil Vidyadhar Sapatnekar Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Michael Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Michael Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION We afford a district court “‘great discretion in the imposition of sentences’ and reverse sentencing decisions only for an abuse of that discretion.” -08 (Minn. 2014) ().
State of Minnesota v. Jack Arnold Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jack Arnold Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
However, “a [district] court has no discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating factors are present.”
State of Minnesota v. Leroy Lamar Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leroy Lamar Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Guidelines 2.D.1 (Supp. 2013); (“[A] sentencing court has no discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating factors are present.”).
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The underlying purpose of the guidelines “will not be served if the trial courts generally fail to apply the presumptive sentences found in the guidelines.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Dakari Michael Coles 862 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leann Bobleter Sargent Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leann Bobleter Sargent Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Guidelines II.D (2010); (“[A] sentencing court has no discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating factors are present.”).
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Ronald Plessel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Ronald Plessel Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A] sentencing court has no discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating factors are present.”
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
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Tuseth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Tuseth Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Such cases are “extremely rare.”
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 853 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 853 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
ANALYSIS “[A] sentencing court has no discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating factors are present.”
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Westgard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Westgard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012); (stating that the sentencing court has no discretion to depart “unless aggravating or mitigating factors are present”).
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
State v. Pegel 795 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Pegel 795 N.W.2d 251 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
(“We review the district court’s decision to depart from the guidelines’ presumptive, sentence for an abuse of discretion.”); (“A trial court’s decision to depart from the presumptive sentence specified in the sentencing guidelines is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”); (“The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant as it did.”), review denied (Min
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
(reducing a sentence of 210 months to the presumptive sentence of 150 months); (reducing a sentence of 144 months to a double durational departure sentence of 96 months).
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Mogler 719 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004