Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Geller, 665 N.W.2d 514.

125 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Abigail Rae Trulson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abigail Rae Trulson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John Porter Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John Porter Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“If the reasons given [for a sentencing departure] are improper or inadequate and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure, the departure will be reversed.” d 514, 516 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Morgan Lee Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Morgan Lee Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a departure from the presumptive sentence for abuse of discretion, and only reverse a presumptive sentence in rare cases.
State of Minnesota v. Glenn Kevin Hazley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Glenn Kevin Hazley Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
However, “[i]f the reasons given are improper or inadequate and there is insufficient evidence of record to justify the departure, the departure will be reversed.”
State of Minnesota v. Guy Anthony Keezer, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Guy Anthony Keezer, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Duane Thomas Mizner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Duane Thomas Mizner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“If no reasons for departure are stated on the record at the time of sentencing, no 10 departure will be allowed.”) (emphasis omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Krystal Elizabeth Alwin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Krystal Elizabeth Alwin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Moreover, 4 we do not observe other factors that make Alwin’s offense less serious than the typical offense.1 The state finally contends that we should not remand for resentencing
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 869 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 869 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Baruch Kefa Nieznanski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Baruch Kefa Nieznanski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 the Minnesota Supreme Court provided a framework for reviewing departure decisions by the district court, 3 That decision provides: 1.
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a departure from the presumptive sentence for abuse of discretion, and will reverse a presumptive sentence only in rare cases
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Julian Sanchez-Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Daniel Morris Johnson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Daniel Morris Johnson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This court reviews “a sentencing court’s departure from the sentencing guidelines for abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thadeus Amick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A]bsent a statement of the reasons for the sentencing departure placed on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.”
State of Minnesota v. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a departure from the presumptive sentence for abuse of discretion, and will reverse a presumptive sentence only in rare cases, Kindem, d at 7.
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 853 N.W.2d 819 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
DECISION “We review a sentencing court’s departure from the sentencing guidelines for abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 853 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Randall Mark Spears v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Randall Mark Spears v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
–15 (Minn. 2003), which provides that “[n]o departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence is permitted absent a statement of the reasons for a sentencing departure placed on the record by the court at the time of sentencing.” But Spears’s reliance on Geller is misplaced because, at Spears’s original sente
Ronald James Kettle v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ronald James Kettle v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 514, 516 (Minn. 2003).
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. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
the supreme court held that this court erred in remanding a case in which the sentencing court failed to state reasons for an upward departure on the record at the time of sentencing.
State v. Rushton 820 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Rushton 820 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(on remand a guidelines sentence must be imposed if district court did not state reasons for departure on the record).
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“[A]bsent a statement of the reasons for the sentencing departure placed on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.”
State v. Petersen 799 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Petersen 799 N.W.2d 653 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“We review a sentencing court’s departure from the sentencing guidelines for an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Haggins 798 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Haggins 798 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“[A]bsent a statement of the reasons for the sentencing departure placed on the record at the time of sentencing, no departure will be allowed.”