Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Best, 449 N.W.2d 426.
-
State of Minnesota v. Misti Dawn Nelson
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
within the applicable [presumptive] range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (Supp. 2023)
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
If a defendant requests a downward departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances 5 provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (alteration in original) ( and Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012)).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Before departing from a guidelines sentence, a district court first must determine whether “‘aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (alteration in original) ( and Minn. Sent’ g Guidelines 2.D.1).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jermaine Louis Fleming, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jermaine Louis Fleming, Appellant
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
If a defendant requests a downward departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (alteration in original) ( and Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Accordingly, the district court “has broad discretion to depart only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present.”
- State of Minnesota v. Donnie Ray Bryant Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Donnie Ray Bryant
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
If a defendant requests a downward departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (alteration in original) ( and Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1).
- Alan Joseph Zakrajshek v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
Alan Joseph Zakrajshek v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The district court can exercise its discretion to depart from the guidelines “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present,” and those circumstances provide a “substantial[] and compelling” reason not to impose a guidelines sentence, Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (Supp. 2021).
- State of Minnesota v. Gavin Patrick Meany Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Gavin Patrick Meany
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
If a defendant requests a downward departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” ( and Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012)).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
If a defendant requests a downward departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” (alteration in original) ( and Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012)).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
If a defendant requests a downward departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” ( 10 (Minn. 1989), and Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012)).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
If a defendant requests a downward dispositional departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘ mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” ( and Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012)).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
If a defendant requests a downward dispositional departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘ mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” ( and Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012)).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
circumstances are present.” State v. Best , d 426, 427 (Minn. 1989) .
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A district court “ has broad discretion to depart” from the sentencing guidelines “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present.” (emphasis omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A district court “has broad discretion to de part” from the sentenci ng guidelines “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present.” (emphasis omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Martell Antonio Bloxson, Appellant.
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(quotations omitted) ( and Minn. Sent.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A district court “has broad discreti on to depart” from the sentencing guidelines “only if aggravating or mitigati ng circumstances are present.” d 426, 427 (Minn. 1989) (e mphasis omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A district court “has broa d discretion to depart” from the sentencing guidelines “if aggravati ng or mitigating circumst ances are present.” State v. Best , (emphasis omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
If a defendant requests a downward dispositional departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘mitigating circumstances are present’” and, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , ( and Minn. Sent.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court “has broad discretion to depart only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
If a defendant requests a downward dispositional departure, a district court first must determine whether “‘mitigating circumstances are present’” an d, if so, whether “those circumstances provide a ‘substantial[] and compelling’ reason not to impose a guidelines sentence.” State v. Soto , ( and Minn. Sent.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But a district court “has broad discretion to depart ” from the sentencing guidelines “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present; if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are not present, the trial court has no discretion to depart.” (emphasis omitted).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Guidelines 2.D.1 (2011)); see also State v. Best , (holding that “the [district] court has broad discretion to depart only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present”) .
- State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-
State v. Walker
913 N.W.2d 463
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012) ); State v. Best , , 427 (Minn. 1989).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- State of Minnesota v. Dennis Ervin Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Ervin Carter
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Guidelines 2.D.1 (2012)); d 426, 427 (Minn. 1989).
- State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present; if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are not present, the trial court has no discretion to depart.” (emphasis omitted)
- State of Minnesota v. Wayne William Leistico Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Wayne William Leistico Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr.
855 N.W.2d 303
Minn. 2014
Accordingly, a sentencing court can exercise its discretion to depart from the guidelines “only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present,” and those circumstances provide a “substantial] and compelling” reason not to impose a guidelines sentence, Minn. Sent.
- State of Minnesota v. David John Ojeda Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. David John Ojeda Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
-
State v. Rourke
773 N.W.2d 913
Minn. 2009
y the facts established by a guilty plea or guilty verdict if “there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a sentence outside the range on the grids.” Id.; (explaining that a “district court has discretion to depart ‘only if aggravating or mitigating circumstances are present.’ ” ()).
- State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-
State v. Adell
755 N.W.2d 767
Minn. Ct. App. 2008
4 A court may not depart from the presumptive sentence without finding that a defendant’s conduct was “significantly more serious than typically involved in the commission of the offense.”
- State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Lindsey 654 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Lindsey 654 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2002