Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Evenson, 554 N.W.2d 409.

17 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Roel Joseph Perez, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Roel Joseph Perez, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In contrast to Perez’s reliance on Nelson, the state’s are more persuasive.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 409, 412 (Minn. App. 1996) (“Even assuming [the defendant] is exceptionally amenable to treatment, his amenabili ty does not dictate the result.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
App. 2009) (“[T ]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so .”); (Minn .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“Even assuming [the defendant] is exceptionally amenable to treatment, his amenabili ty does not dictate the result.”) , review denied (Minn. Oc t. 29 1996).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Back , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
resumptive term.’” State v. Pegel , -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (quoting State v. Wall , ); see also State v. Olson , -65 (Minn. App. 20 09) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.”); (“Even assuming [a defendant] is exceptionally amenable to trea tment, his amenability does not dictate the result.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The term “lawful possession” is “without regard to ownership” because attention is accorded “to the distinct legal right to possess.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
presumptive term.’” -54 (Minn. App. 2011) (); -65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defe ndant is particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.”); State v. Evenson , (“Even assuming [a defendant] is exceptionally amen able to treatment, his amenability does not dictate the result.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
State v. Spence 742 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Spence 742 N.W.2d 203 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Colvin 645 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2002
State v. Colvin 645 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2002
-12 (Minn.App.), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.