Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Givens, 544 N.W.2d 774.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Isaac Gutierrez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota v. Isaac Gutierrez
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Underlying the Guidelines is the notion that the purposes of the law will not be served if judges fail to follow the Guidelines in the ‘general’ case.” (
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Such a waiver of constitutional or statutory rights must conform to the usual limitations and be “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” State v. Givens
- State of Minnesota v. Jesse James Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Jesse James Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Otis Redmond Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Otis Redmond Ware
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“This court is loath[] to overturn the exercise of that discretion without clear evidence of its abuse.”).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
10 (affirming upward departure when defendant treated kidnap vic tim in particularly cruel way by driving her around for two hours “in a wild fashion” and subjecting her to psychological terror and physical abuse)
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
If such a wai ver were allowed, caselaw suggests that it should “conform to the usual limitations accompanying the waiver of constitutional or statutory rights, that is, it must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” (describing requirements for waiver of right to be sentenced under sentencing guidelines), superseded by statute, 1997 Minn. Laws ch. 96, § 1, at 694-95, as recognized in Misquadace, d at 65.
- State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Matthew Jonathan Hardy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Matthew Jonathan Hardy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Tyrece Curtis Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Tyrece Curtis Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Orozco v. State 841 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
Orozco v. State
841 N.W.2d 632
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
the supreme court held that a defendant may waive the right to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines, but the waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; the defendant must have been advised of the right to be sentenced under the guidelines and must have had an opportunity to consult
- Townsend v. State 834 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2013
- Townsend v. State 834 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2013
- State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
-
State v. Amundson
828 N.W.2d 747
Minn. Ct. App. 2013
-72 (Minn.2002) (holding that plea agreements cannot form the sole basis of sentencing departure, which held that a defendant could, by plea agreement, waive sentencing under guidelines).
- State v. Peter 825 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
- State v. Peter 825 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
- Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
- State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Eller 780 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
State v. HEIGES
779 N.W.2d 904
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Guidelines II.D (2008); (“[T]he presumptive sentence should be imposed, unless the circumstances of the crime indicate that a departure is warranted.”).
-
State v. Eller
780 N.W.2d 375
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(allowing for reversal of sentences when the record does not establish the existence of any proper aggravating factors); (reviewing a sentencing decision, based partially on valid sentencing considerations, for a clear abuse of discretion), overruled on other grounds, , 777 n. 4 (Minn.1996).
- Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-
Carey v. State
765 N.W.2d 396
Minn. Ct. App. 2009
the supreme court acknowledged that the 1997 amendments to section 244.09, subdivision 5, which had held that a defendant could waive the “right” to be sentenced under the guidelines.
- State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
- State v. Thompson 720 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2006
- State v. Thompson 720 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2006
- State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
- Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
-
Spann v. State
704 N.W.2d 486
Minn. 2005
At the same time, we have allowed criminal defendants to waive many rights stating that “it has long been settled law that courts will honor a defendant’s lawful, ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’ ” (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct.
- Lewis v. State 697 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-
Lewis v. State
697 N.W.2d 624
Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Appellant also challenges his sentence on the grounds that his waiver of his right to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines was not knowing
- State v. Thompson 694 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Thompson 694 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Hagen 690 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Hagen 690 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Johnson 689 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Johnson 689 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2004