Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Case, 350 N.W.2d 473.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A23-1716 A23-1717 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We are “extremely deferential” to a district court’s decision whether to impose a departure, -96 (Minn. App. 2010), rev. denied (Minn. July 20, 2010), and we “cannot simply substitute our judgment for that of the [district] court,” d 473, 476 (Minn. App. 1984) (explaining that appellate courts “are loath to interfere” with district court’s dispositional departure from sentencing guidelines).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We are “extremely deferential” to a district court’s decision whether to impose a departure, Dillon, d at 595-96, and we “cannot simply substitute our judgment for that of the [district] court,” (explaining that appellate courts are “loath to interfere” with a district court’s sentencing decision).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(noting that the “court may consider a defendant’s prior failures at treatment” when assessing particular amenability).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
While this court is “loath to interfere” with a district court’s sentencing decision, the discretion afforded to the district court “is not a limitless grant of power,”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Devon Jarmon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Devon Jarmon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lashun Theodits Witherspoon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lashun Theodits Witherspoon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that even though “[t]his court may have acted otherwise had it been sitting as a sentencing court,” “we are loath to interfere in the absence of an abuse of the discretion granted in departing dispositionally from the guidelines”).
State v. Bendzula 675 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bendzula 675 N.W.2d 920 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Law 620 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Law 620 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
This court recognizes the broad discretion of the trial court in sentencing matters and is “loath to interfere .”
State v. Sejnoha 512 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Sejnoha 512 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Dokken 487 N.W.2d 914 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. O'BRIEN 364 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hemmings 360 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hemmings 360 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 1985

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by