Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bauerly, 520 N.W.2d 760.

54 citing documents.

Luke Joshua Cain, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See, (recognizing that remorse “generally bears on the defendant’s amenability to probation, and is relevant to a dispositional departure”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(affirming district court’s imposition of a downward departure and concluding that the defendant’s offense, “a theft which is more than $500 below the mid-range for a Severity Level III theft, is ‘significantly’ less serious than the typical offense”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Samantha Dana Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Samantha Dana Schroeder Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-63 (Minn. App. 1994) (affirming departure from felony conviction to gross misdemeanor sentence based on mitigating factors), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1 (2018); review denied (Minn. Oct.
James Eugene Love, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Oct.
A18-1999 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Third, Royster’s review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Bauerly , (holding that an imposed sentence one day shorter than the presumptive felony sentence of one year and one day is a durational departure), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(holding that imposing a gross- misdemeanor sentence for a felony conviction is a downward durational departure), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Trog , ; (explaining that remorse, or lack thereof, bears on amenability to probation, particularly in sentencing for crimes against a person).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Minn. Stat. § 609.13; (holding that imposing a gross -misdemeanor sentence for fe lony theft conviction is a durational departure ), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Rund 896 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2017
State v. Rund 896 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2017
See Solberg, d at 625-26 (discussing remorse); (Minn.App.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that, in considering the relative seriousness of a defendant’s offense, “ the sentencing court is not confined to looking at the means by which the defendant committed the offense but may also look to the resulting damage or loss ”); -63 (Minn. App. 1994) (stating that “[t] he value of the property [defendant] stole is a relevant factor to consider in a durational departure” from guidelines sentence for Severity Level III theft (citing Myers, d at 738)), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Adam Wallace Jaunich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Adam Wallace Jaunich Minn. Ct. App. 2016
27, 2013); (ruling that imposition of a 365-day gross- misdemeanor sentence on a felony theft conviction with a presumptive guidelines sentence of 366 days constituted a downward durational departure), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Abigail Rae Trulson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abigail Rae Trulson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that the imposition of a 365-day gross-misdemeanor sentence on a felony conviction is a downward durational departure), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Harrison William Rund Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Harrison William Rund Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(ruling that imposition of a 365-day gross-misdemeanor sentence on a felony theft conviction with a presumptive guidelines sentence of 366 days constituted a downward durational departure), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Crowder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Krystal Elizabeth Alwin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Crowder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-63 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Krystal Elizabeth Alwin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In State v. Bauerly, this court ruled that the imposition of a 365-day gross-misdemeanor sentence on a felony conviction that carried a presumptive year-and-a-day sentence “is a durational departure rather than a dispositional departure.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 869 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 869 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Misty Dawn Dyrdahl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Misty Dawn Dyrdahl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that gross-misdemeanor sentence imposed that was only one day less than presumptive felony sentence constituted a downward durational departure), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Parnard Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Shannon Marie Kiesner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Shannon Marie Kiesner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that even though gross-misdemeanor sentence imposed was only one day less than presumptive felony sentence, imposed sentence was downward durational departure), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Parnard Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that amenability to probation is relevant to dispositional departures), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Respondent argues that remorse/acceptance of responsibility can be appropriately considered an offense-related factor, review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Leroy Lamar Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leroy Lamar Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In State v. Bauerly, we applied this rule from McGee to a situation where the defendant did show remorse: “The district court properly considered [the defendant’s] remorse as relating back to the seriousness of her offense, and helping to support the downward durational departure.” –63 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Hope Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hope Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that a year-long sentence for an offense that called for a presumptive sentence of a year and a day was a durational departure), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Leann Bobleter Sargent Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leann Bobleter Sargent Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that a year-long sentence for an offense that carried a presumptive sentence of a year and a day is a downward durational departure), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Westgard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Westgard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that pronouncing a year-long sentence for an offense that carried a presumptive sentence of a year and a day is a durational departure), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Peter 825 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Peter 825 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
rt not only such a dispositional departure but, alternatively, an upward durational departure.”); (holding that likelihood of future criminal behavior is not valid reason for durational departure); (holding that post-offense remorse is not appropriate factor for durational departure); (holding that age and lack of a felony record are not valid bases for dura-tional departures), review denied (Minn. Oct.