Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Williams, 337 N.W.2d 387.
- State of Minnesota v. Daniel Roy Luckhardt Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Roy Luckhardt
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-91 (Minn. 1983) (holding that reviewing courts will generally not disturb a district court’s exercise of discretion when the imposed sentence is within the presumptive range).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-
Edson Celin Benitez Dominguez, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(noting 8 that fairness and uniformity in sentencing requires consideration of the sentences received by an accomplice and other similar offenders).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Williams , (explaining that direct evidence includes “testimony of a person who perceived the fact through his senses, and testifies to it, or physical evidence of the fact itself”).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- State of Minnesota v. Bryan Blocker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Blocker
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that the testimony of a person who perceived a fact through her senses or physical evidence of the fact itself is direct evidence); (observing that state proved each of disputed elements through witness testimony, which is direct evid
- State of Minnesota v. William Heminchi Underhill Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. William Heminchi Underhill
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellant asserts he is “equally culpable” with his codefendants and requests that this court reverse and remand for resentencing “in the interest of fairness and uniformity.”
- State of Minnesota v. Antionee Jarmaine Mixon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ricardo Mastrey Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Ricardo Mastrey
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“Direct evidence is the testimony of a person who perceived the fact through his senses, and testifies to it, or physical evidence of the fact itself.”).
- State of Minnesota v. Antionee Jarmaine Mixon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
- State v. Schmidt 612 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2000
-
State v. Schmidt
612 N.W.2d 871
Minn. 2000
Where offenses with multiple victims arise from the same behavioral incident, we uphold the imposition of one sentence per victim if this would not result in “punishment grossly out of proportion to the defendant’s culpability.” 7
- State v. Pelawa 590 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-
State v. Pelawa
590 N.W.2d 142
Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(holding that a court may consider the sentence of an accomplice in determining a fair sentence).
- State v. Lundberg 575 N.W.2d 589 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
-
State v. Lundberg
575 N.W.2d 589
Minn. Ct. App. 1998
to imposition of sentences in other cases to determine whether sentencing exaggerates criminality of defendant’s conduct); cf. Norris, d at 71 (concluding consecutive application of five terms of 60 months each for total of 300 months, added to sentence of life imprisonment for murder in first degree, unfairly exaggerates criminality of defendant’s conduct); see, -90 (Minn.1983) (concluding consecutive sentences of 54 months for robbery convictions and concurrent 54-month term for burglary convi
- State v. Whittaker 568 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1997
- State v. Whittaker 568 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 1997
- State v. Jones 498 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
- State v. Jones 498 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
- State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
- State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
- State v. Witucki 420 N.W.2d 217 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-
State v. Witucki
420 N.W.2d 217
Minn. Ct. App. 1988
“An appellate court will not generally review the trial court’s exercise of its discretion in cases where the sentence imposed is within the presumptive range.” ().
- State v. Schneider 402 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1987
- State v. Schneider 402 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1987
- State v. Starnes 396 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Starnes 396 N.W.2d 676 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Scott 375 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Scott 375 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Danielski 374 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Danielski 374 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- Williams v. State 361 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1985
- Williams v. State 361 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1985
- In Re Welfare of A.B.L. 358 N.W.2d 417 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
In Re Welfare of A.B.L.
358 N.W.2d 417
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
the victims of a burglary were able to identify only two of the three men *421 who robbed their house.
- State v. Farr 357 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Farr 357 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Williams 349 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Williams 349 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Kennedy 342 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 1984