Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Herrmann, 479 N.W.2d 724.

21 citing documents.

A24-1308 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(Supp. I 2003)4; n.2 (Minn. App. 1992) (noting that Hernandizing may be used to calculate a defendant’s criminal-history score for offenses arising from a single behavioral incident involving multiple victims), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
However, the mere fact that other trafficking victims were younger does not negate the seriousness of Woods’s conduct nor render it “less serious than is typical.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(noting that, in issuing a durational departure, a district court must consider whether the defendant’s conduct was “significantly more or less seri ous than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question” (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. March 19, 1992).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When deciding whether to depart durationally, a district court must determine if “the defendant’s conduct was significantly more or less serious than that typically involved in the commission of the crime in question.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Using appellant's prior offenses and speculating as to his future offenses as a basis for upward departure (in the name of ‘public safety’) is improper.”
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Crowder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Crowder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“The defendant’s amenability to probation or treatment is a relevant factor in determining whether a dispositional departure is warranted, but does not appear to bear on the issue of the appropriate duration of a sanction.”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Parnard Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Parnard Smith, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-29 (Minn. App. 1992) (stating that amenability to treatment and probation are offender- related factors that may support dispositional departure), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. President Pimping Austin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“When the crime charged requires ‘injury’ alone, then the sentencing court can depart from the presumptive sentence when the victim’s injuries are serious.”), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Westgard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Westgard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 724, 728 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Kujak 639 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Kujak 639 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
When considering a departure “as to duration, a sentencing *882 court must ‘analyze the act as compared with other acts constituting the same offense.’ ” (-29 (Minn. App.1992), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
19, 1998) (-29 (Minn.App.1992), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Behl 573 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Behl 573 N.W.2d 711 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
-29 (Minn.App.1992), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Condon 497 N.W.2d 272 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Condon 497 N.W.2d 272 Minn. Ct. App. 1993