Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Schmit, 601 N.W.2d 896.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
- Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
-
Wheeler v. State
909 N.W.2d 558
Minn. 2018
See State v. Schmit , , 898 n.3 (Minn. 1999) ("[W]e take this opportunity to remind district court judges that a [district court] judge should neither usurp the responsibility of counsel nor participate in the plea bargaining negotiation itself.
- State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Gary Richard Wessman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Gary Richard Wessman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State v. Rushton 820 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
- State v. Rushton 820 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
- State v. Haggins 798 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
- State v. Haggins 798 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
- State v. Mohamed 779 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Mohamed 779 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
- State v. Skipintheday 704 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Skipintheday 704 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Martinson 671 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Martinson 671 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Copeland 656 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
-
State v. Copeland
656 N.W.2d 599
Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“When a district court departs [from the sentencing guidelines], it must articulate substantial and compelling reasons justifying the departure.” (citation omitted).
- State v. Sanchez-Sanchez 654 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Sanchez-Sanchez 654 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Thao 649 N.W.2d 414 Minn. 2002
-
State v. Thao
649 N.W.2d 414
Minn. 2002
nce under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines is within the district court’s discretion, but when a district court departs from the presumptive sentence, it must articulate “substantial and compelling reasons” justifying the departure, Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.D
- State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-
State v. DeShay
645 N.W.2d 185
Minn. Ct. App. 2002
To justify a departure, the aggravating or mitigating factors must be “substantial and compelling.” (citation omitted).
- State v. Misquadace 644 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2002
- State v. Misquadace 644 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2002
- State v. Traylor 641 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Traylor 641 N.W.2d 335 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Pearson 637 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2002
- State v. Pearson 637 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2002
- State v. Reece 625 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 2001
- State v. Reece 625 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 2001
- State v. Lattimer 624 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-
State v. Lattimer
624 N.W.2d 284
Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(holding the decision to depart from the sentencing guidelines is within the district court’s discretion and will not be disturbed absent clear abuse of that discretion); (holding supreme court “will not interfere with a trial court’s discretion in sen
- State v. Reece 615 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
-
State v. Reece
615 N.W.2d 852
Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(“nothing in the sentencing guidelines or in any of our previous cases * * * would permit the district court * * * to simply ignore [a defendant’s] criminal history score”).