Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Peterson, 329 N.W.2d 58.

62 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Walter Johann Happel, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5a(b) (2018); d 11 victim was young and the defendant was in a position of authority over [the victim] are not grounds for departure because those facts were considered by the legislature in determining the severity of the offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 869 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 869 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2015
5a(a)(3) (2014), requires proof of facts that the Legislature did not consider in setting the sentence for the offense of conviction, a departure based on this factor does 1
State of Minnesota v. Dakari Michael Coles 862 N.W.2d 477 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Wayne Eilertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Wayne Eilertson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
While we have held that such conduct cannot be relied on to justify an upward departure, we conclude that its use is appropriate for setting the severity level for unranked offenses.”).
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
State v. Edwards 774 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2009
-79 (Minn.2005) (“The reasons used for departing must not themselves be elements of the underlying crime.”)
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
State v. Thompson 720 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2006
State v. Thompson 720 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2006
In other words, “elements of an offense cannot be used as aggravating factors to impose an upward sentencing departure for that same offense.” Osborne, d at 446 ().
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
While we have held that such conduct cannot be relied on to justify an upward departure, we conclude that its use is appropriate for setting the severity level for unranked offenses.
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heath 685 N.W.2d 48 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
( ); (explaining that court may not base dura-tional departure from presumptive sentence on evidence that defendant could have been convicted of unc
State v. McIntosh 641 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 2002
State v. McIntosh 641 N.W.2d 3 Minn. 2002
State v. Williams 608 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2000
State v. Williams 608 N.W.2d 837 Minn. 2000
We have held that the trial court may not rely on conduct underlying one conviction to support departure on a sentence for a separate conviction, and conduct underlying proof of the offense itself cannot be relied upon to justify an upward departure
State v. Kenard 606 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2000
State v. Kenard 606 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2000
While we have held that such conduct cannot be relied on to justify an upward departure, we conclude that its use is appropriate for setting the severity level for un-ranked offenses.
State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Sebasky 547 N.W.2d 93 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(noting the defendant’s position of authority was apparently a basis for the severity of the offense and for convicting him of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree rather than in the third or fourth degree).
State v. Davis 540 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Davis 540 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Elvin 481 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Elvin 481 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Yanez 469 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Yanez 469 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Ballweber v. State 457 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Ballweber v. State 457 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Dixon 415 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Dixon 415 N.W.2d 414 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Saharath 355 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Saharath 355 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Winchell 352 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Winchell 352 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Substantial circumstances for departure are those which make the case “different from a typical case.” Section I, Sentencing Guidelines
State v. Jeno 352 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Jeno 352 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Cook 351 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Cook 351 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Ahern 349 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Ahern 349 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Cermak 350 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1984
State v. Cermak 350 N.W.2d 328 Minn. 1984