Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Abeyta, 336 N.W.2d 264.

37 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Bryant Wayne Paige Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Wayne Paige Minn. Ct. App. 2025
If the record shows that the district court carefully considered and evaluated the information presented to it, this court “may not interfere” with its imposition of a presumptive sentence, “even if there are 7 grounds that would justify departure.” -81 (Minn. App. 1985)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
This applies “even if there are grounds that would justify departure.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“[W]e will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence ‘fall[ing] within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.’” State v. Bertsch , ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
even if there are grounds that would justify departure.”
State v. Bertsch 707 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2006
State v. Bertsch 707 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2006
However, we will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence “fall[ing] within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.”
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
early present did not obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.”); (“We have indicated in a number of cases that ordinarily we *294 will not interfere with a sentence that falls within the presumptive sentence range even if there are grounds that would justify departure.”); (rejecting defendant’s argument “that there were mitigating circumstances present which were so substantial that the trial court on remand erred in refusing to depa
State v. Lonergan 381 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Quast 381 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Quast 381 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lonergan 381 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Yant 376 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Yant 376 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Olson at 19 ; aff'd on remand
State v. Stahlberg 373 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stahlberg 373 N.W.2d 843 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Ordinarily we will not interfere with a presumptive sentence
State v. Halverson 373 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Halverson 373 N.W.2d 618 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Patricelli 357 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1984
State v. Patricelli 357 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 1984
State v. Propotnik 355 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Propotnik 355 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Cerceo 354 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1984
State v. Cerceo 354 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 1984
State v. Lugo-Diaz 348 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1984
State v. Lugo-Diaz 348 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1984
Defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to depart is answered by the following decisions of this court:
State v. Andren 347 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Andren 347 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
(refusal to make, dispositional departure and place defendant on probation); -8 (Minn.1981); (refusal to make dispo-sitional departure and place defendant on probation
State v. Pickett 343 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Pickett 343 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See, (rejecting an argument that the trial court erred in refusing to depart dispositionally and place the defendant on probation).
State v. Johnson 342 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1984
State v. Johnson 342 N.W.2d 635 Minn. 1984
we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to depart dispositionally.
State v. Back 341 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1983
State v. Frost 342 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1983
State v. Frost 342 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1983
State v. Back 341 N.W.2d 273 Minn. 1983
See, (rejecting an argument that the trial court erred in refusing to depart dis-positionally and place the defendant on probation).