Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McIntosh, 641 N.W.2d 3.

55 citing documents.

Christopher Lee Konakowitz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Christopher Lee Konakowitz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A departure constitutes an abuse of discretion if “no reasons for the departure are stated on the record” or, if reasons were stated, “the reasons given are improper or inadequate and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure.” State v. McIntosh , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
to support his argument.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 308 (d 3, 8 (Minn. 2002)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
o rely on the jury’s finding that the controlled-substance offense involved quantities substantially larger than for personal use, even though there was “an incredible amount of meth,” or the findin g that members of the conspiracy possessed firearms, d 3, 11-12 (Minn. 2002).
State v. Stempfley 900 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 2017
A15-1255 Minn. 2017
D-5 compelling circumstances must be present in the record to justify departures from the applicable presumptive sentence s.” State v. McIntosh , (citation omitted) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
4 When the district court states its reasons for a departure, the reviewing court “examine[s] the record to determine if the reasons given justify the departure.”
State of Minnesota v. Albert William Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Albert William Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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
impliedly overrule Peake and Lindsey.
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 869 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(citing State v. Spaeth, 8 for the rule that a “court may not rely on conduct underlying one conviction to support a sentencing departure for a separate conviction”).
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-12 (Minn. 2002), in support of the contention that the “major controlled substance crime” factor impermissibly duplicates the offense’s Category 9 ranking in the guidelines.
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
Conversely, a departure is an abuse of discretion if the court’s reasons are “ ‘improper or insufficient’ ” and there is “ ‘insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure.’ ” ().
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 853 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 853 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
to support the proposition that an element of an offense cannot be used as an aggravating factor.
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Westgard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Westgard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d four in its departure report: “Crime less onerous than usual,” “Amenable to probation,” “Amenable to treatment,” and “Impose restitution/ensure financial penalties paid.” 5 When the district court states its reasons for a departure, we must “examine the record to determine if the reasons given justify the departure.”
State v. Peter 825 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Peter 825 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Dillon v. State 781 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The supreme court has explained that reviewing for abuse of discretion requires us to determine whether the district court’s reasons for the departure are “improper or inadequate.” ().
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
A court must justify a departure with “substantial and compelling circumstances,” which are “those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different from a typical case,” Taylor, d at 587 .
State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
State v. Rodriguez 754 N.W.2d 672 Minn. 2008
held that conduct underlying one conviction for which a defendant was sentenced cannot be used to support an upward sentencing departure for a separate conviction.” ().
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
State v. Masood 739 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Masood 739 N.W.2d 736 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
State v. Thompson 720 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2006
State v. Thompson 720 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2006
“Substantial and compelling circumstances must be present in the record to justify departures from the applicable presumptive sentences in the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.”
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
State v. Beaty 696 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Beaty 696 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
"If the reasons given [for an upward departure] are improper or inadequate and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure, the departure will be reversed.”
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