Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262.

140 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
16, 2002), and State v. Curtiss
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Curtiss , -64 (Minn. App. 1984).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In exercising that discretion, the district court must consider the arguments for a sentencing departure “ alongside valid reasons for non -departure.” State v. Curtiss , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 262, 263-64 (Minn. App. 1984) (discussing a downward durational departure); review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
He cites State v. Curtiss, in which we remanded and held that the district court erred in denying the motion because “[t]he record suggest [ed] factors for departure” that the district court failed to “deliberately consider[].” d 262, 264 (Minn. App. 1984) .1 But in Curtiss, the topic of departure “was abandoned” before the district court had an opportunity to exercise its broad discretion.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Curtiss , -64 (Minn. App. 1984).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 80–81; see also State v. Curtiss , d 262, 263 (Minn. App. 1984).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 81; (noting that no written explanation is needed when a district court elects to impose a presumptive sentence rather than a downward departure).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“Consideration of compelling circumstances is central to the scheme of the sentencing guidelines, and the practice will avoid sentencing t hat is either mechanical or callous.”).
A18-1219 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
16, 2002); (remanding bec ause record established that district court failed to consider arguments for departure).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
By considering these factors, a district court “will avoid sentencing that is either mechanical or callous.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But if there are “compelling circumstances for departure,” then they “should be deliberately considered.” 264 (Minn. App. 1984).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Our review of the record co nvinces us that the district court fully and thoughtfully considered both “arguments for departure” and the “valid reasons for non-departure.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Pegel , d at 254 (noting that if a district court deliberately 11 considers the reasons for departure but chooses not to depart, an explanation for the denial is not required)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
8(a) (2014); (remanding to district court for reconsideration of a durational departure because the district court failed to consider factors supporting departure).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Sagataw 892 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Sagataw 892 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-99 (Minn. App. 2009) (stating misapplication of the law is an abuse of discretion); (remanding to district court because district court failed to exercise discretion when it, without considering all relevant factors, stated “there [was] no justifiable reason to deviate” from the presumptive sentence).
State of Minnesota v. Chris Harry McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chris Harry McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Ervin Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dimitri Devonte Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dimitri Devonte Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Ervin Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that if a district court considers the reasons for departure but chooses not to depart, an explanation is not required)
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Devon Derrick Parker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. 884 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider factors for a sentencing departure); (“This 8 While Westlaw states that Le has been “abrogated,” Rubey does not expressly criticize or overrule the decision to
State of Minnesota v. Duane Meredith Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Duane Meredith Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
16, 2002); Curtiss, - 64 (Minn. App. 1984).
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hope Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Hope Marie Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
16, 2002); (remanding because the district court “erred in putting aside arguments for departure rather than considering them”).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Richard Doble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert Richard Doble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel David Ojanen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel David Ojanen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that a district court must deliberately consider a defendant’s arguments for departure).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lee Goettig Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lee Goettig Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(Minn. App. 1 If an offense carries a mandatory minimum sentence, the presumptive sentence is the longer of either the mandatory minimum or the guidelines sentence.