Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Behl, 573 N.W.2d 711.

50 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Further, c aselaw recognizes that, when considering a dispositional departure, “ a district court may consider both offender - and offense -related factors.” State v. Walker , (citing State v. Behl , ).
Donna Mae Bastyr, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When determining whether an offense was less serious than a typical offense, the district court “must analyze the act as compared with other acts constituting the same offense.” State v. Behl , (quotation omitted) , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
6 court did not abuse its discretion when it dete rmined that the defendant’s role was less serious than a typical defendant’s role); (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the conduct involved was more serious than that involved in the typical offense), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Behl , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(emphasis and quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Behl , , 713 (Minn. App. 1998) (citing State v. Chaklos , , 228 (Minn. 1995) ).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing State v. Chaklos , ), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(citing State v. Chaklos , ) , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
–14 (Minn. App. 1998) (stating that amenability to probation has “no bearing” when considering a durational departure), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Ervin Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Ervin Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Adam Wallace Jaunich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Adam Wallace Jaunich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Guidelines 2.D.3.a.(3) (2014) (noting that the voluntary use of intoxicants (drugs or alcohol) does not qualify as a mitigating factor for a departure); (stating that a 5 defendant’s amenability to probation does not support a durational departure), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Abigail Rae Trulson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abigail Rae Trulson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that a defendant’s amenability to probation does not support a durational departure), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Zaki Mohamed Sugule Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Zaki Mohamed Sugule Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Mar.
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
(“In justification of departure from a presumptive sentence under the sentencing guidelines, offense-related factors support durational or dispositional departure but offender-related factors relate only to dispositional departure.”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Misty Dawn Dyrdahl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Misty Dawn Dyrdahl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(), review denied 10 (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Hope Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hope Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In justification of a departure from a presumptive sentence under the sentencing guidelines, offense-related factors support durational or dispositional departure but offender-related factors relate only to dispositional departure.” d 711, 712 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Daniel David Ojanen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel David Ojanen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Trog, d at 31 (listing offender-related factors); review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Kujak 639 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Kujak 639 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
When considering a departure “as to duration, a sentencing *882 court must ‘analyze the act as compared with other acts constituting the same offense.’ ” (-29 (Minn. App.1992), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Durational Departure “[A]s to duration, a sentencing court must ‘analyze the act as compared with other acts constituting the same offense.’” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Tze Thao 634 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Tze Thao 634 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Law 620 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Law 620 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(stating an appellate court “will overturn the decision of the trial court upon reaching a ‘collegial conclusion’ that a sanction is disproportional to the severity of the crime” ()), review denied (Minn. Mar.