DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

152 citing documents.

  • Ronald James Kettle v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    “Substantial and compelling 7 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.” (quotations omitted); (“‘Substantial and compelling circumstances’ are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case.”).
  • State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Octavious Stansberry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Jermaine Octavious Stansberry Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    -95 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010).
  • State v. Turrubiates 830 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Turrubiates 830 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    al sentencing departure when it sentenced a defendant for first-degree criminal sexual conduct based on grounds including the age of a child— three years — because the child’s age was “already taken into account by the legislature in determining the degree of seriousness of the offense” when the first-degree criminal-sexual-conduct statute required that the complainant be “under 13 years of age.” -86, 589 (Minn.2003); see Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Peter 825 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Peter 825 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    Guidelines II.D.1 (2010)
  • State v. M.D.T. 815 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. M.D.T. 815 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    In matters of punishment, the judiciary is charged with “the responsibility of ensuring that the punishment is not inconsistent with statutory requirements, unreasonable, inappropriate, excessive, unjustifiably disparate or not warranted by the findings of fact issued by the district court.” (quoting Minn.Stat.
  • Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011
  • Tucker v. State 799 N.W.2d 583 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • Rickert v. State 795 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2011
  • 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.” ()
  • Rickert v. State 795 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2011
    The purpose of the factual-basis requirement is "to protect the defendant from the conviction of a greater offense by guilty plea than would have been possible had he exercised his right to trial.” , 589 n. 5 (Minn.2003)
  • State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Mohamed 779 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Mohamed 779 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    Mohamed maintains that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s precludes consideration of H.M.’s particular vulnerability here.
  • State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vance 765 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Vance 765 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Stanke 764 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Stanke 764 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2009
  • 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. Pugh 753 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Pugh 753 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) the district court sentenced appellant to 144 months and ten *310 years of conditional release for first-degree criminal sexual conduct.
  • 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
  • State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Morales-Mulato 744 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Jones 733 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Jones 733 N.W.2d 160 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    “It is generally proper for the court to consider the conduct underlying the charge of which the defendant is convicted; but reliance on other offenses that are not part of the charge and of which the defendant was not convicted is not a permissible basis for durational departure.”
  • State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Zeimet 696 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Zeimet 696 N.W.2d 791 Minn. 2005
    In Minnesota we have a commission-based sentencing guidelines system, the goals of which are “to assure public safety, promote uniformity and proportionality in sentencing, provide greater honesty or ‘truth in sentencing,’ and coordinate sentencing practices with correctional resources.” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Beaty 696 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Beaty 696 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    (holding that upward departure may not be based on uncharged offenses of which defendant was not convicted).
  • State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Saue 688 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004