DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wall, 343 N.W.2d 22.

152 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    (stating that if mitigating factors are shown, district court may, but is not required to, depart); d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006) (affirming denial of a request for departure despite defendant’s argument that Trog factors
  • Wells v. State 839 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • Wells v. State 839 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    Finally, and most importantly, the presence of mitigating factors does “not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” (stating that an appellate court will not disturb the district court’s sentence if the district court refused to depart, even if there are reasons for departing downward).
  • State v. Pegel 795 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Pegel 795 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    But the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does “not obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than *254 the presumptive term.”
  • State v. Eller 780 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Eller 780 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. McLaughlin 725 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2007
  • State v. McLaughlin 725 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2007
    to support his argument that he should have received concurrent sentences in light of his mental illness.
  • State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    See, (“The fact that a mitigating factor was clearly 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 wi
  • State v. Martinson 671 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Martinson 671 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    (stating that diagnosis of paranoia and schizophrenia is a mitigating factor and holding that record failed to support upward durational sentencing departure where defendant lacked substantial capacity for judgment when he committed the offense).
  • State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Oberg 627 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Oberg 627 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Furthermore, the mere fact that a mitigating factor is present in a particular case does “not obligate the court to place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.”
  • State v. Evenson 554 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Evenson 554 N.W.2d 409 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    (existence of a mitigating factor does not obligate court to order probation or impose a shorter sentence); (even where evidence indicates a defendant is particularly amenable to treatment in a probationary setting, a reviewing court generally will not
  • State v. Carter 545 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Carter 545 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Wilson 539 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Wilson 539 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Krebsbach 524 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Krebsbach 524 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Lee 491 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Lee 491 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1992
    (depraved mind assault).
  • State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    the supreme court reversed a trial court’s decision not to depart downward.
  • State v. Hopkins 486 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Hopkins 486 N.W.2d 809 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    -26 (Minn.1984) (trial court does not have discretion to ignore possibly mitigating factors).
  • State v. Elting 480 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Elting 480 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    29, 1991); (defendant’s mental impairment does not require sentencing departure).
  • State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Sanford 450 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Hennum 441 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Hennum 441 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Holland 421 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Holland 421 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Fett 414 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Fett 414 N.W.2d 783 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    806 n. 1 (Minn.1984) (lack of remorse is relevant to determination of amenability to probation); (perpetrator-related factors such as una-menability to probation bear on dispositional departure); d *785 273 (Minn.1983) (remorse bears on disposi-tional departure).
  • State v. Staten 390 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Sturm 391 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Sturm 391 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    The trial court expressly considered the mitigating factors in Sturm’s background in deciding whether he was “particularly deserving of punishment.”
  • State v. Staten 390 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Stephani 369 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Stephani 369 N.W.2d 540 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Peake 355 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Peake 355 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1984