Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cox, 343 N.W.2d 641.
- State v. Booth 357 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Anderson 356 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Anderson 356 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Saharath 355 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Saharath 355 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Winchell 352 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-
State v. Winchell
352 N.W.2d 447
Minn. Ct. App. 1984
: The general issue that faces a sentencing court in deciding whether to depart dura-tionally is whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.
- Ture v. State 353 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1984
-
Ture v. State
353 N.W.2d 518
Minn. 1984
“[t]he general issue that faces a sentencing court in deciding whether to depart dura-tionally is whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” In this case, the trial court was justified in concluding
- State v. Kisch 346 N.W.2d 130 Minn. 1984
-
State v. Kisch
346 N.W.2d 130
Minn. 1984
in a case such as this where a defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offense, the trial court ordinarily may not base an upward durational departure on evidence indicating that in fact the defendant could have been convicted of a greater offense.
- State v. Dietz 344 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1984
- State v. Dietz 344 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 1984