Skip to main content

State v. Garcia

Citations

  • 302 N.W.2d 643
  • 1981 Minn. LEXIS 1209

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that even if mitigating factors are present, court is not required to depart
  • upholding a sentencing departure because the trial court, while relying on a few improper factors, also based its decision on appropriate sentencing considerations and, therefore, did not clearly abuse its discretion
  • affirming, dispositional departure because defendant was an “extremely poor candidate” for probation
  • generally reviewing sentencing departures for a clear abuse of discretion
  • overruled on other grounds by State v. Givens, 544 N.W.2d 774 (Minn. 1996). “Consequently, departures from the guidelines are discouraged and are intended to apply to a small number of cases.” State v. Solberg, 882 N.W.2d 618, 623 (Minn. 2016

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sheran

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

151 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.