Cited by

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

234 citing documents.

Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Haggins 798 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Haggins 798 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
The Minnesota Supreme Court has previously determined that a plea agreement that includes a sentencing departure is justified under the guidelines so long as “substantial and compelling circumstances exist.”
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Departures from the presumptive sentence are intended to be the exception, having application “to a small number of cases.”
State v. Robideau 796 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2011
State v. Robideau 796 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2011
We review a decision by the district court “to depart from the presumptive guidelines sentence for an abuse of discretion.” ()
State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Yaritz 791 N.W.2d 138 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Departures from the presumptive sentence are intended to be the exception, having application “to a small number of cases.”
State v. Holmes 778 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2010
State v. Holmes 778 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2010
§ 609.095 (2008) (“The legislature has the exclusive authority to define crimes and offenses and the range of the sentences or punishments for their violation.”)
State v. Mohamed 779 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Mohamed 779 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Tucker v. State 777 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Tucker v. State 777 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
State v. Williams 771 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 2009
State v. Williams 771 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 2009
(“The power to fix the limits of punishment for criminal acts lies with the legislature.
Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
and citing O’Meara and Teague for proposition that “if a defendant’s conviction was already final at the time the new rule of law was announced, the defendant ordinarily may not take advantage of the new rule because it will not be retroactive”); -65 (Minn.2004) ( “was not based on an interpretation or clarification of [statute],” but “established a new rule of law” and, therefore, does not apply to a conviction final before it was decided).
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Grampre 766 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Substantial and compelling circumstances are present when “the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
State v. Vance 765 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2009
State v. Vance 765 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2009
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those demonstrating that ‘the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.’ ” ().
Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
the supreme court acknowledged that the 1997 amendments to section 244.09, subdivision 5, which had held that a defendant could waive the “right” to be sentenced under the guidelines.
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Substantial and compelling circumstances are present *338 when “the defendant’s conduct in the offense of conviction was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.”
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(stating that departures cannot be based on uncharged offenses).
State v. Meredyk 754 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Meredyk 754 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Everything was interrelated and it would be inappropriate for this court to make piecemeal corrections without regard to the effect of the corrections on the plea bargain.”), aff'd
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines “were created to assure uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability in sentencing.” (citing Minn.Stat.
State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
In State v. Misquadace, we acknowledged the legislature’s unequivocal statement that “[s ]entencing pursuant to the sentencing guidelines is not a right that accrues to a person convicted of a felony; it is a procedure based on state public policy to maintain uniformity, proportionality, rationality, and predictability *147 in sentencing.” (quoting Act of May 6, 1997, eh.
State v. Kebaso 713 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2006
State v. Kebaso 713 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2006
However, while “[t]he power to fix the limits of punishment for criminal acts lies with the legislature^] * * * the imposition of a sentence in a particular case within those limits is a judicial function.” (citation omitted).
Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
He suggests, as an example, that in requiring the defendant to waive all appeal rights, the state could ignore the requirement, that a sentencing departure cannot be based on a plea agreement alone, but must have a factual basis.
State v. Rannow 703 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Rannow 703 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(holding that “negotiated plea agreements that include a sentencing departure are justified under the guidelines in cases where substantial and compelling circumstances exist[,]” but a “plea agreement standing alone ...
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Robinson 699 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(“[T]he imposition of a sentence in a particular case ...
Lewis v. State 697 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 2005