Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Reece, 625 N.W.2d 822.

59 citing documents.

State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Although if aggravating factors are present, a district court has broad discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence, the district court’s departure must be within proper boundaries: Among the boundaries identified for proper departure is that the reasons used for departing must not themselves be elements of the .underlying crime.
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
II.B.502; (“[T]he [sentencing] court must comply with the sentencing guideline’s mandate that the court determine how the offender would have been sentenced had the offense occurred in Minnesota at the time of the current offense, not when the offense actually occurred out of state.”).
Hankerson v. State 723 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2006
Hankerson v. State 723 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2006
See, -26 (Minn.2001) (reversing the district court’s calculation of criminal history *241 score and remanding for a resentencing hearing with instructions for the district court to reconsider defendant’s foreign convictions based on statutory guidelines); 843 (Minn.2000) (reversi
State v. Maley 714 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Maley 714 N.W.2d 708 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Courtney 682 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2004