Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sanders, 598 N.W.2d 650.

43 citing documents.

Luke Joshua Cain, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
District courts deserve deference because of their “unique perspective” on the proceedings; “the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate the offender’s conduct and weigh sentencing options.” (quotation omitted).
Milton K. Sanders, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Milton K. Sanders, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
State v. Sanders (Sanders I)
State of Minnesota v. Michael Joseph Letourneau 6 N.W.3d 73 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Michael Joseph Letourneau 6 N.W.3d 73 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See State v. Sanders , (holding appellant was not prejudiced by denying continuance request when the court had granted two motions for continuance); (concluding that district court properly denied request to substitute counsel on the first day of trial); State v. Beveri
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
ad no real effect: n.4 (Minn. 2014) (two life sentences for murder); Vang, d at 258 (life sentence for first-degree murder); Yang, d at 551 (two life sentences for aiding and abetting first-degree premeditated murder for the benefit of a gang); Cruz-Ramirez, d at 504 (life sentence with no possibility of release); d 650, 654 (Minn. 1999) (life imprisonment for first-degree murder); (life sentence for murder).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Sanders , 54 (Minn. 1999) ( “An initial consideration in reviewing the denial of a continuance is whether the trial court had granted any previous motions for continuance by appellant.”).
State of Minnesota v. Delonte Ahshone Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Delonte Ahshone Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
On review, appellate courts look at the circumstances surrounding the continuance request and determine whether the denial was so prejudicial in the preparation of an adequate defense as to “materially affect the outcome of the trial.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ismael Thiam Dore Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ismael Thiam Dore Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The decision to grant a continuance is vested in the sound discretion of the trial court.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Griffin 846 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Sanders v. State 791 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2010
Sanders v. State 791 N.W.2d 126 Minn. 2010
A detailed statement of the facts describing the crimes that form the basis of this appeal is set forth in Sanders’ direct appeal at State v. Sanders (Sanders I), -58 (Minn.1999).
State v. Lehman 749 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Lehman 749 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Cargill, Inc. v. Jorgenson Farms 719 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Cargill, Inc. v. Jorgenson Farms 719 N.W.2d 226 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Dunham v. Roer 708 N.W.2d 552 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Blanche 696 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2005
State v. Brooks 690 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Brooks 690 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“Typically, the failure to object to a prosecutor’s statement forfeits a defendant’s right to have the issue considered on appeal.” () (quotation marks omitted).
State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
-57 (Minn.1999); see also Minn. Sentencing Guidelines II.F.2.
State v. Bendzula 675 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bendzula 675 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
.Fundamentally, respondent reminds this court, the supreme court recognizes the superior sentencing capacity of the trial court, observing that the sentencing judge “sits with a unique perspective on all stages of a case, including sentencing, and the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate the offender’s conduct and weigh sentencing options.”
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
State v. Powers 654 N.W.2d 667 Minn. 2003
State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002
State v. Wilson 632 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2001
State v. Wilson 632 N.W.2d 225 Minn. 2001
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
Sanders v. State 628 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2001
Sanders v. State 628 N.W.2d 597 Minn. 2001
State v. Lattimer 624 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Lattimer 624 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(holding the decision to depart from the sentencing guidelines is within the district court’s discretion and will not be disturbed absent clear abuse of that discretion); (holding supreme court “will not interfere with a trial court’s discretion in sentencing unless the sentence is disproportionate to the offense”) (citation omitted); (holding district court judges, not the prosecution, pronounce sentences).