Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kenard, 606 N.W.2d 440.

30 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.A.4.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Brandon Maurice Baker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Minn. 2022
Instead, the court assigned Miller’s offense of being an accomplice after the fact a severity level of 8 under the sentencing guidelines and then imposed a presumptive sentence of 48 months in prison.5 See Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
f the specific conduct underlying the unranked offense,” (2) “the severity level assigned to any ranked offense with elements that are similar to the elements of the unranked offense,” (3) “the conduct of and severity level assigned to other offenders for the same unranked offense,” and (4) “the severity level assigned to other offenders engaged in similar conduct.” Id.; State v. Kenard , .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“No single factor is controlling nor is the list of factors meant to be exhaustive.” State v. Kenard
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Second, Wang Navas argues that particular circumstances may not be used to assign a severity level and also to support an upward departure.7 d 440, 443 n.3 (Minn. 2000).
Barbara Ann Currin, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Guidelines 2.A.4 ; see State v. Kenard , (recommending the district court consider these four factors when assigning a severity level to an unranked offense ).
Demiteras Al Cooper, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
y of the specific conduct underlying the unranked offense;” (2) “the severity level assigned to any ranked offense with elements that are similar to the e lements of the unranked offense ;” (3) “the conduct of and severity level assigned to other offenders for the same unranked offense;” and (4) “the severity level assigned to other offenders engaged in similar conduct.” Id.; d 440, 443 (Min n. 2000).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Kenard , , 443 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota v. Rosalyn Mary Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Rosalyn Mary Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tylynne Lashawn Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tylynne Lashawn Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. James David Gertz, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James David Gertz, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Id., at *9; (outlining four factors that a district court must consider in assigning a severity level to an unranked offense).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Wayne Eilertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Wayne Eilertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Wayne Eilertson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Wayne Eilertson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Bertsch 707 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2006
State v. Bertsch 707 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2006
State v. Skipintheday 704 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Skipintheday 704 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the district court’s severity-level determination for an unranked offense.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by