Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Love, 350 N.W.2d 359.

23 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    State v. Love , (recognizing prosecutorial discretion in determining which offenses to charge, including an assessment of sentencing options).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Richmond 730 N.W.2d 62 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    See, (addressing charging under criminal-sexual-conduct versus intrafamilial-sexual-conduct statute); -23 (Minn.1982) (addressing charging under theft versus odometer-tampering statute); (addressing charging under theft ve
  • State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Donnay 600 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Donnay 600 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    The court may make a disposi-tional departure, placing the defendant on probation if the defendant is “particularly *474 amenable to probation or if offense-related mitigating circumstances are present.”
  • State v. Sejnoha 512 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Sejnoha 512 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    ANALYSIS A sentencing court may disposition-ally depart and place a defendant on probation if the defendant is “particularly amenable to probation or if offense-related mitigating circumstances are present.”
  • State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • Wedan v. State 409 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Wedan v. State 409 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Williams 396 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Williams 396 N.W.2d 840 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    2198 , 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979)
  • State v. Jones 381 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Jones 381 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1985
    where we held that the legislature’s passage of the intra-familial sexual abuse statute was not intended to limit the prosecutor’s discretion to prosecute under the criminal sexual conduct statute.
  • State v. Myers 359 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Myers 359 N.W.2d 604 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Case 350 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1984