Cited by

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

140 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David John Ojeda Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David John Ojeda Minn. Ct. App. 2014
for the proposition that, when compelling circumstances for a departure exist, the district court 3 must deliberately consider them before imposing the presumptive sentence.
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court must weigh the reasons for and against a sentencing departure, - 64 (Minn. App. 1984), including the consideration of mental illness as a mitigating factor.
State of Minnesota v. LaQuinn Jamul Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. LaQuinn Jamul Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(listing amenability to probation as among factors that may justify a downward departure); (requiring the district court to “deliberately consider[]” mitigating factors before rejecting a motion for a downward departure).
State of Minnesota v. Tyrece Curtis Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tyrece Curtis Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that district court erred by ignoring arguments for departure).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that “a written explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence”).
State of Minnesota v. Tawnja Rene Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tawnja Rene Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Johnson 831 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Johnson 831 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Weaver 796 N.W.2d 561 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
But in exercising its sentencing discretion, the district court “must consider circumstances supporting a downward durational departure from the presumptive sentence.” 263 (Minn.App.1984) (remanding for reconsideration of defendant’s request for downward departure where the district court erred in failing to consider “legitimate” and “significant” reasons for departure).
State v. Pegel 795 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Pegel 795 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
16, 2002); (noting that record suggested factors for departure that should be deliberately considered).
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
While it is true that a district court errs when it fails to consider valid departure factors, -64 (Minn.App.1984), in this case, the district court explicitly addressed the reasons for a dis-positional departure before exercising its discretion to deny the departure.
State v. Mudgett 748 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Mudgett 748 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
and remand so that he may argue for plea withdrawal under the pre-sentencing, fair-and-just standard.
State v. Kier 678 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kier 678 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bendzula 675 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bendzula 675 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
This judicial determination will “avoid sentencing that is either mechanical or callous.”
State v. Mendoza 638 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Mendoza 638 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that a sentencing court has no discretion to depart from sentencing guidelines unless mitigating or aggravating factors are present).
State v. O'BRIEN 429 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. O'BRIEN 429 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. McKissic 415 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. McKissic 415 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Although Kindem left the question open, a review of the case law reveals only one case in which an appellate court disturbed a presumptive sentence: -64 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (remanded for failure to consider reasons for departure).
State v. Cameron 370 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Cameron 370 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The existence of circumstances permitting departure is a “threshold question.”