Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Taylor v. State, 670 N.W.2d 584.

152 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Ervin Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Ervin Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brock William Orwig Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Scott Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Scott Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 883 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 883 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Harrison William Rund Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Harrison William Rund Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 882 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 882 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Allen Maurice Moffett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Allen Maurice Moffett Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The judge shall utilize the presumptive sentence provided in the sentencing guidelines unless the individual case involves substantial and compelling circumstances.” Id.; (“Substantial and compelling circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Andre Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Andre Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In determining whether to durationally depart from the guideline sentence, the district court considers whether the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime described in the applicable statute.” (quotation omitted); (stating that “‘[s]ubstantial and compelling circumstances’ are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case”).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Cornelius Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Cornelius Watkins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Darnell Lakes Minn. Ct. App. 2015
For example, the appellant was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct based on evidence that he sexually abused a three-year-old child who was enrolled in his wife’s home-based day-care program.
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Misty Dawn Dyrdahl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Misty Dawn Dyrdahl Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Cindarion De'Angelo Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley James Schnickel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
CS-1 “As a general rule, the guidelines contemplate that offenders with similar criminal backgrounds who are convicted of similar crimes receive similar sentences; and offenders with more extensive criminal records who commit the most serious and violent offenses receive the greater sentences.”
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Jonathan Hardy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Jonathan Hardy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
where th[e] fact[] [was] already taken into account by the legislature in determining the degree of seriousness of the offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“‘Substantial and compelling circumstances’ are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.”
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lee Closner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lee Closner Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ronald James Kettle v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014