Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Oberg, 627 N.W.2d 721.

48 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
If circumstances warranting a departure exist, “[t]he decision whether to depart from [the] sentencing guidelines rests within the discretion of the [district] court.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Abdirashid Ahmed Hassan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Abdirashid Ahmed Hassan Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. William Arthur Kalligher Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. William Arthur Kalligher Minn. Ct. App. 2024
If substantial and compelling circumstances exist, “[t]he decision whether to depart from [the] sentencing guidelines rests within the discretion of the [district] court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Camille Lashay Dennis-Bond Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Camille Lashay Dennis-Bond Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We will not disturb a district court’s refusal to depart “absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Reinert Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Reinert Minn. Ct. App. 2024
If substantial and compelling circumstances exist, “[t]he decision whether to depart from [the] sentencing guidelines rests within the discretion of the [district] court.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Dennis John Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Dennis John Edmondson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
If substantial and compelling circumstances exist, “[t]he decision whether to depart from [the] sentencing guidelines rests within the discretion of the [district] court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Tarik Toyshawn Smith-Whitmore Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Tarik Toyshawn Smith-Whitmore Minn. Ct. App. 2024
If substantial and compelling circumstances exist, “[t]he decision whether to depart from [the] sentencing guidelines rests within the discretion of the [district] court.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Torisa Sulvoris Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Torisa Sulvoris Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Donna Mae Bastyr, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Even when there may be mitigating factors to support a departure, “the mere existence of such factors [does] not obligate the sentencing court to depart from the presumptive sentence.” rev. denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Nyla Tomeka Murrell-French, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
3 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Oberg , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Oberg , review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(requiring “clear abuse” of discretion to reverse sentencing departure), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Guidelines 2.B.5.a.; review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Aug.
A18-1219 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Whether to depart from a guidelines sentence rests within the district court’s discretion, and this court will not reverse the district court’s decision “absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Guidelines 2.B (2017); review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Artaveus Shawntez Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Artaveus Shawntez Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But “the mere fact that a 3 mitigating factor is present in a particular case does not obligate the court to place defendant on probation.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Leone Revello Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Leone Revello Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Basil Benna Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Basil Benna Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Whether to depart from the guidelines rests within the district court’s discretion, and this court will not reverse the decision “absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Olson 765 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Olson 765 N.W.2d 662 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Whether to depart from the guidelines rests within the district court’s discretion, and this court will not reverse the decision “absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Jones 733 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Jones 733 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Whether to depart from the guidelines *165 rests within the district court’s discretion, and this court will not reverse the decision “absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
review denied (Minn. Aug.
State v. Saue 688 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Saue 688 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
295 , 828 P.2d 70, 72 (1992) (describing departure as an “option” if aggravating factors present); (holding that, under the guidelines, the judge “may” depart if aggravating factors are present), (noting that, even if mitigating factors are present, the court is not required to depart).
State v. Hanf 687 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hanf 687 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(holding that under the guidelines the judge “may” depart if aggravating factors are present); (Minn.App.