DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

137 citing documents.

  • State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    A district court considering a dis-positional departure may focus “on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and society.”
  • State v. Allen 706 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Allen 706 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 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 decision whether to depart dispositionally focuses “more on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.”
  • State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (), review denied (Minn. Oct.
  • State v. Chaklos 528 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Chaklos 528 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 1995
  • State v. McCalister 462 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. McCalister 462 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Wittman 461 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Wittman 461 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Carpenter 459 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Carpenter 459 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Carter 424 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Carter 424 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    (when justifying disposi-tional departure, the trial court can focus on defendant as an individual and on whether presumptive sentence is good for him and for society; trial court’s reliance on defendant’s amenability to probation and no prior criminal history, was proper)
  • State v. Doherty 419 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Doherty 419 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    The supreme court held that when justifying a dispositional departure, “the trial court can focus more on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.”
  • In Re the Welfare of D.S.F. 416 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Nesler 376 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Nesler 376 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Cameron 370 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Cameron 370 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Malinski 353 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Malinski 353 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Higginbotham 348 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Higginbotham 348 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Dietz 344 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Dietz 344 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1984
    (factors bearing on durational departures or departures with respect to consecutive service focus primarily on the degree of a defendant’s culpability, whereas in considering dispositional departures courts may focus more on the defendant as an individual); (s
  • State v. Wall 343 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Wall 343 N.W.2d 22 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Ott 341 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Ott 341 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Sherwood 341 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
  • State v. Sherwood 341 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
    the court indicated that in deciding whether to depart dispositionally, the trial court can focus more on the defendant as an individual and whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.