Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Malinski, 353 N.W.2d 207.

35 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Michael Everett Splittstoser Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Donald Arthur Zawchenuk Minn. Ct. App. 2026
For example, an appellate court affirmed a downward dispositional departure where the record showed the defendant “finally was motivated to try to rehabilitate himself and had found the right program to help him do it.” -43 (Minn. 1983) ; -11 (Minn. App. 1984) (affirming a downward departure despite the defendant’s lengthy criminal history based on the district court’s finding “that the defendant has reached a very critical stage in his life, and that if the defendant is ever to change his life
State of Minnesota v. Tyler James Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Sharmark Hussein Jama Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Tyler James Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Sharmark Hussein Jama Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jamez Antoine Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2024
2 (Minn. App. 2003) (observing that admitting 11 guilt is a “critical factor in an offender’s amenability to treatment”); rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Robert Allen Bennett Minn. Ct. App. 2024
However, amenability may also be premised on timely observation of motive to reform.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Collin Charles Koerner Minn. Ct. App. 2023
30, 1992) ; rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Monique Swart Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Substantial and 5 compelling circumstances justifying a downward dispositional departure “include a finding that a defendant is particularly amenable to correction on probation and unamenable to correction by imprisonment.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Cody Robert Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 207, 209 (Minn. App. 1984) ( stating that substantial and compelling circumstances for downward dispositional departure may “include a finding that a defendant is particularly amenable to correction on probation and unamenable to correction by imprisonment”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Winston Eckman Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Substantial and compelling circumstan ces justifying a downward dispositional departure “include a finding that a defendant is particularly amenable to correction on probation and unamenable to correction by imprisonment.” d 207, 209 (Minn. App. 1984), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Dwayne Leckner Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Joseph Melius Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 442, 443 (Minn. 1983); (“[A]menability may also be premised on timely observation of motive to reform.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Johnny Clifton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
be premised on timely observation of motive to reform.” State v. Malinski , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Ramiro Alejandro Pena Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In support of this argument, appellant cites to State v. Malinski where we “affirmed a dispositional departure under le ss persuasive circumstances than those presented here.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
He argues that his criminal re cord demonstrates that “incarceration has not helped him remain law abiding.” For support, (affirming district court’s dispositional departure in presumptive commit case), and State 9 v. Malinski, (concluding district court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for dispositional departure), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Juan Andres Gonzalez, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Malinski , (“[A]menability [to probation] may .
State of Minnesota v. Tevon Keenan Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But particular amenability to probation may “be premised on timely observation of motive to reform.” State v. Malinski , (), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Eli Jermel Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“The substantial and compelling circumstances justifying departure by staying a sentence include a finding that a defendant is particularly amenable to correction on probation and unamenable to correction by imprisonment.” 3 (), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Carl Remley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In a similar context, this court has recognized that a district court may consider whether a “defendant is amenable to supervision rather than imprisonment,” and , if “the risk of placing him on probation [is] significantly outweighed by evidence that he [is] finally motivated to try to rehabilitate himself.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Yusef Abdi Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In a similar context, this court has recognized that a district court may consider whether “the defendant is amenable to supervision rather than imprisonment” and determine whether “the risk of placing him on probation [is] significantly outweighed by evidence that he [is] finally motivated to try to rehabilitate himself.” review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota (A15-1247) (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley (A15-1247) (A15-1255) Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota (A15-1247) (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley (A15-1247) (A15-1255) Minn. Ct. App. 2016
211 (Minn. App. 1984), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Daniel David Ojanen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel David Ojanen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 207, 209-10 (Minn. App. 1984) (affirming a dispositional departure where the court identified sufficient factors showing the defendant was amenable to probation despite defendant’s lengthy criminal history), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Bendzula 675 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bendzula 675 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Correction of the trial court is acceptable only on this court’s “strong feeling” that a sentence is inappropriate, review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Hickman 666 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Hickman 666 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Law, d at 565 ( review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Law 620 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Law 620 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State v. Staten 390 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1986