Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Heywood, 338 N.W.2d 243.

141 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ramiro Alejandro Pena Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In considering a dispositional departure, the district court “c an focus more on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.” Abrahamson, d at 337.
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Trog , , 31 (Minn. 1982) (listing factors courts may consider when *56 determining whether defendant is particularly amenable to probation, including defendant's age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in court, and support of family and friends); see also State v. Heywood , , 244 (Minn. 1983) (stating that in considering dispositional departure, this court's focus is on defendant as an individual and whether presumptive sentence is best for defendant and for society).
State of Minnesota (A18-0876) (A18-1246) v. Casey Daniel Bauer (A18-0876) (A18-1246) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Trog , (listing factors courts may consider when determining whether defendant is particularly amenable to probation, including defendant’s age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in 13 court, and support of family and friends); (stating that in considering dispositional departure, this court’s focus is on defendant as an individual and whether presumptive sentence is best for defendant and for society).
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When considering a downward -dispositional departure, the district court focuses “more on the defendant as an individual and on whether the [guidelines] sentence would be best for him and for society.”
State of Minnesota v. Karl Edward Henze Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Trog , State v. Wright
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Gibson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Trog , (listing factors court s may consider when determining if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, including defendant ’s age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in court, and support of family and friends); (stating that in considering a dispositional departure, the court’s focus is on the defendant as an individual and whether the presumptive sentence is best for him and for society).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lamarr Ousley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Abrahamson, d at 337 (“A district court 6 considering a dispositional departure may focus ‘on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and soci ety.’” ()).
State of Minnesota v. Eli Jermel Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The substantial and compelling circumstances justifying departure by staying a sentence include a finding that a defendant is particularly amenable to correction on probation and unamenable to correction by imprisonment.” 3 (), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Adkins Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Brian Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Heywood , (citing Trog, d at 31).
State of Minnesota v. James Francis Muelken Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In determining whether to depart dispositionally, the district c ourt should focus “on the defe ndant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.” State v. 4 Heywood
State v. Rund 896 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2017
State v. Rund 896 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2017
Solberg, d at 625 ; (“[W]hen justifying only a disposi-tional departure, the trial court can focus more on the defendant as an individual....
State of Minnesota v. Chaz Jacobi Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chaz Jacobi Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Artaveus Shawntez Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Artaveus Shawntez Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Walter David Tischer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Walter David Tischer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When justifying a dispositional departure, the district court focuses “on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.”
State of Minnesota v. Donald Kalib John Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Kalib John Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Krystal Elizabeth Alwin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Krystal Elizabeth Alwin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that to justify a dispositional departure the district court “can focus more on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for [her] and for society”).
State of Minnesota v. John Jay Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Jay Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Specifically, the district court considered the factors relevant to a dispositional departure, such as his amenability to probation, which 10 includes factors such as his “age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family,”
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that a decision on a dispositional departure allows the court to “focus more on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for [her] and for society”).
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Dispositional departure The appropriateness of a dispositional departure depends on the defendant as an individual, “on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel David Ojanen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel David Ojanen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rather, the court focuses “on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.”
State of Minnesota v. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
(explaining that “when justifying only a dispositional departure, the trial court can focus more ...
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The appropriateness of a dispositional departure “depends on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.”
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
(the imposition of a sentence within the limits prescribed by the Legislature is purely a judicial function); (explaining that a defendant’s age and family support are relevant sentencing factors).
State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb Minn. Ct. App. 2014
While the sentencing guidelines focus primarily on “the degree of a defendant’s culpability,” when considering a downward dispositional departure, the district court may “focus more on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.”
State of Minnesota v. Tyrece Curtis Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tyrece Curtis Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court’s focus is “on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.”
State of Minnesota v. Kanishka Shereal Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kanishka Shereal Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that “the offender-related factor of particular unamenability to [probation] may be used to justify a dispositional departure” but that “offense-related aggravating factors may be used to support” both dispositional and durational departures); (stating that when considering “only a dispositional departure, the [district] court can focus more on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for [the defendant] and for society”).
State of Minnesota v. Lashun Theodits Witherspoon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lashun Theodits Witherspoon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The appropriateness of a dispositional departure “depends on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.”