Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Best, 449 N.W.2d 426.

111 citing documents.

  • 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