Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Massey v. State, 352 N.W.2d 487.

30 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The trial court is in a best position to weigh the various sentencing options and therefore is granted broad discretion in sentencing.” (affirming discretionary imposition of consecutive sentences) (citing State v. Back , 3 Neither Minnesota caselaw nor statutory law recognize addiction as a mental illness that establishes a defense .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Because the district court is in the best position to weigh sentencing options, we deny appellant’s request to remand for imposition of a 56-month commitment.
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Massey v. State , , 489 (Minn.App.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Massey v. State , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (“Consecutive sentencing of multiple felonies with multiple victims is permissive and within the broad discretion of the district court.” (quotation omitted)); (“When both consecutive and concurrent sentencing options are authorized by the Sentencing 5 Guidelines, compelling circumstances must be shown before the trial court’s decision will be reversed.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
David Laurence Hodges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
David Laurence Hodges v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
the record [and] appellate review is frustrated.” Hodges contends that his “sentence should be modified to the maximum appropriate sentence, given the lack of an appropriate record: the presumptive sentence under the guidelines.” “The [district] court is in a best position to weigh the various sentencing options and therefore is granted broad discretion in sentencing.” d 487, 489 (Minn. App. 1984).
State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
“[t]he trial court is in [the] best position to weigh the various sentencing options and therefore is granted broad discretion in sentencing.” Id.
State v. Beamon 438 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Beamon 438 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Hendrickson 406 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Hendrickson 406 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Schwab 404 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Schwab 404 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Nunn 399 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Nunn 399 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Crapser 378 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Crapser 378 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Scott 373 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Scott 373 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
We have said the “trial court is in a best position to weigh the various sentencing options and therefore is granted broad discretion in sentencing.” pet.
Williams v. State 365 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Williams v. State 365 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Nolder 357 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Nolder 357 N.W.2d 370 Minn. Ct. App. 1984