DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

121 citing documents.

  • State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    20, 2000), even though it “has no discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating factors are present.”
  • State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Rourke 681 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Rourke 681 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Kier 678 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Kier 678 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    no discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating factors are present.” (emphasis added).
  • State v. Bendzula 675 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Bendzula 675 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    1 (reciting need for aggravating circumstances; reducing to a double departure, 96 months, the trial court’s 144-month triple departure).
  • State v. Dominguez 663 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Dominguez 663 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    “[A district] court has no discretion to depart from the sentencing guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating factors are present.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Mendoza 638 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Mendoza 638 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    (stating that a sentencing court has no discretion to depart from sentencing guidelines unless mitigating or aggravating factors are present).
  • State v. Valentine 630 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Valentine 630 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    -89 (Minn.1999) (stating sentencing court “should consider whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question” (emphasis added) (quotations omitted)); (stating court “should
  • State v. Reece 625 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Reece 625 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Reece 615 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Reece 615 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    *854 (citations omitted).