Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Geller, 665 N.W.2d 514.
- Vickla v. State 778 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
Vickla v. State
778 N.W.2d 354
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
review denied (Minn. Aug.
- State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
- State v. Jones 745 N.W.2d 845 Minn. 2008
- State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
- State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
- 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. Coleman 731 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-
State v. Coleman
731 N.W.2d 531
Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In the other line of cases, it has not permitted departure.” (citations omitted).
- Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-
Black v. State
725 N.W.2d 772
Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“We review a [district] court’s departure from the sentencing guidelines for abuse of discretion.”
- 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. Rannow 703 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Rannow 703 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
- State v. Shattuck 689 N.W.2d 785 Minn. 2004
- State v. Saue 688 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-
State v. Saue
688 N.W.2d 337
Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(holding that disagreement with the guidelines does not justify departure); (holding that the district court must provide reasons for any departure from the presumptive sentence).
- State v. Hanf 687 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Hanf 687 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Martinson 671 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Martinson 671 N.W.2d 887 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
- State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003
- State v. Richardson 670 N.W.2d 267 Minn. 2003