Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Anderson, 356 N.W.2d 453.

41 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Further, “[i]f the record supports findings that substantial and compelling circumstances exist, this court will not modify the departure unless it has a ‘strong feeling’ that the sentence is disproportional to the offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Gideon Charles Arrington, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gideon Charles Arrington, II Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 modify the departure unless it has a strong feeling that the sentence is disproportional to the offense.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(stating that where the record supports the finding that an aggravating factor provides substantial and compelling reasons to depart, an appellate court “will not modify the departure unless it has a ‘strong feeling’ that the sentence is disproportional to the offense”).
State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See, (defendant’s egregious conduct included driving at excessive speed under influence of six or seven “rum cokes” and five beers and leaving scene of accident).
State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Esler 553 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Esler 553 N.W.2d 61 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Behl 547 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Behl 547 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Harwell 515 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Harwell 515 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
If the record supports a finding of substantial and compelling circumstances, this court will not interfere with the sentence “unless it has a ‘strong feeling’ that the sentence is disproportional to the offense.” ().
State v. Patterson 511 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Patterson 511 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
“If the record supports findings that substantial and compelling circumstances exist,” a reviewing court will not interfere with the trial court’s discretion “unless it has a ‘strong feeling’ that the sentence is disproportional to the offense.” ().
State v. Kimmons 502 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Kimmons 502 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
If the record supports the trial court’s findings of substantial and compelling circumstances, a reviewing court will uphold the sentence “unless it has a ‘strong feeling’ that the sentence is disproportionate to the offense.” ().
State v. Herrmann 479 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Herrmann 479 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Pearson 479 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Pearson 479 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
“If the record supports findings that substantial and compelling circumstances exist,” a reviewing court will not interfere with the trial court’s discretion “unless it has a ‘strong feeling’ that the sentence is disproportionate to the offense.” ().
State v. VanWert 438 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. VanWert 438 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Schenk 427 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Schenk 427 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Williams 414 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Williams 414 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Finn 391 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Finn 391 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Loitz 366 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Loitz 366 N.W.2d 744 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Williams v. State 365 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Williams v. State 365 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Presley 364 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Presley 364 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Anderson 361 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Anderson 361 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1985