Free Newsletter
Sentencing – Downward Dispositional Departures
jennifersteen//February 3, 2014//
Listen to this article
Appellant challenged the District Court’s denial of his motion for a downward dispositional departure in his sentence after he pleaded guilty to third-degree assault. The Court of Appeals noted that appellant’s argument that the District Court ignored mitigating factors in his case did not mandate the conclusion that the District Court erred by refusing to depart. It held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that a departure is unjustified and by imposing a presumptive sentence. Affirmed.
A13-0458 State v. Drift (St. Louis County)
Top News
- Judge invalidates Trump policies targeting immigrants from 39 countries
- Minnesota Tax Court names Beverly Luther Quast chief judge
- Courts may deliver anti-vaccine movement’s biggest win
- Fredrikson goes all-out to support Special Olympics
- Court backs generic drugmaker in ‘skinny label’ patent case
- Justices back FCC in clash with wireless carriers over fines
- Lawsuit alleges Pentagon censorship of Stars and Stripes newspaper
Expert Testimony
- Perspectives: Election litigation starting early in Minnesota
- Quandaries & Quagmires: ‘Dear Ethics Lawyer’ — A Resource for Ethics Training
- Best at Work Insights: AI alone can’t improve your company
- Perspectives: ‘Nuremberg’ movie has Minnesota legal links
