Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Misquadace, 644 N.W.2d 65.

234 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Javier Rodriguez 863 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Javier Rodriguez 863 N.W.2d 424 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Harry Maddox, III Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Harry Maddox, III Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Although there are various ways to present the factual basis for a guilty plea, all of them contemplate the disclosure on the record of the specific facts that would establish the elements of the crime to which the defendant is pleading guilty.” -92 (Minn. App. 2001), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Dakari Michael Coles 862 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jared Armand Cobb Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jared Armand Cobb Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert Patrick Butters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert Patrick Butters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Although there are various ways to present the factual basis for a guilty plea, all of them contemplate the disclosure on the record of 3 the specific facts that would establish the elements of the crime to which the defendant is pleading guilty.” -92 (Minn. App. 2001), aff’d
Terelle Eugene Shaw v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Patrick James Kissner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terelle Eugene Shaw v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In a supplemental memorandum, which held that a plea agreement alone is not a sufficient basis to support an upward durational departure.
State of Minnesota v. Patrick James Kissner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Although there are various ways to present the factual basis for a guilty plea, all of them contemplate the disclosure on the record of the specific facts 4 that would establish the elements of the crime to which the defendant is pleading guilty.” -92 (Minn. App. 2001), aff’d
Tommie Relando Norwood v. State of Minnesota, Respondent./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Tommie Relando Norwood v. State of Minnesota, Respondent./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Alfaro Minn. Ct. App. 2014
21- month sentence, or reversal of his sentence and remand for further findings by the district court “to determine what facts the court relied upon to impose the quadruple upward departure sentence.” “[N]egotiated plea agreements that include a sentencing departure are justified under the guidelines in cases where substantial and compelling circumstances exist.”
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
1.A.5; (“[A]ll departures from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines must be supported by substantial and compelling circum-stances_”).
State of Minnesota v. Martin David Hutchins, Jr. 856 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Martin David Hutchins, Jr. 856 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
lea agreement involving many charges, we explicitly agreed with the state’s argument that “the sentences at issue were part of a ‘package’ and that a modification by this court [would allow the defendant] to retain all the benefits of the plea bargain but to escape a portion of the consequences he agreed to.” aff’d on other grounds, (stating that following defendant’s successful appeal of his sentence “the district court should be free to consider the effect that changes in the sentence have on
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
(the imposition of a sentence within the limits prescribed by the Legislature is purely a judicial function); (explaining that a defendant’s age and family support are relevant sentencing factors).
Ken B. Peterson, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ken B. Peterson, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
First, it is dictum, meaning “a statement in an opinion that could have been eliminated without impairing the result of the opinion.” n.2 (Minn. App. 2001), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthoni McMorris-Rice, Appellant./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Steven Anthoni McMorris-Rice, Appellant./li> Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A factual basis requires “the disclosure on the record of the specific 5 facts that would establish the elements of the crime to which the defendant is pleading guilty.” -92 (Minn. App. 2001), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Wayne Eilertson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Wayne Eilertson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
a plea agreement, without more, can be the basis for a departure from the sentencing guidelines.”
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lee Closner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lee Closner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ayala-Leyva 848 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Orozco v. State 841 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Orozco v. State 841 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
the supreme court held that a sentencing departure “must be supported by substantial and compelling circumstances, and that a plea agreement — standing alone— is not a sufficient basis to depart from the sentencing guidelines.” But the holding in Misquadace is not retroactive.
State v. Rohan 834 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Rohan 834 N.W.2d 223 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
490 n. 2 (Minn.App.2001) (“Dictum is a statement in an opinion that could have been eliminated without impairing the result of the opinion.”), aff'd
State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
-72 (Minn.2002) (holding that plea agreements cannot form the sole basis of sentencing departure, which held that a defendant could, by plea agreement, waive sentencing under guidelines).
State v. Rushton 820 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Rushton 820 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
But “a plea agreement— standing alone — is not a sufficient basis to depart from the sentencing guidelines.”
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Montermini 819 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(discussing the parties’ considerations in the context of a plea involving multiple crimes), aff'd
State v. Clarkin 817 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 2012
State v. Clarkin 817 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 2012
John Ward Gillman Engraved June 20, 1775 Copper Printing Plate v. Heritage Auctions, Inc. 806 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
John Ward Gillman Engraved June 20, 1775 Copper Printing Plate v. Heritage Auctions, Inc. 806 N.W.2d 861 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
em I matters were unnecessary to Shaffer’s holding and are therefore nonbinding dicta.” The district court also reasoned that “[tjhere is strong discord among the courts with respect to interpretation of Shaffer.” “Dictum is a statement in an opinion that could have been eliminated without impairing the result of the opinion.” , 490 n. 2 (Minn.App.2001), aff'd
State v. Petersen 799 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Petersen 799 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“[Negotiated plea agreements that include a sentencing departure are justified under the sentencing guidelines in cases where substantial and compelling circumstances exist.”
Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011