State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
20 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Bryant Jerome Stephenson
Minn. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
“This court will generally not exercise its authority to modify a sentence within the presumptive range ‘absent compelling circumstances.’” Id. (quoting State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn. 1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Charles ONeal Darby, Jr.
Minn. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
“This court will generally not exercise its authority to modify a sentence within the presumptive range ‘absent compelling circumstances.’” Delk, 781 N.W.2d at 428 (quoting State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn. 1982)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Michael David Henderson
Minn. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn. 1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Kabba Kangbateh (2×)
Minn. · 2015 · confidence medium
State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn. 1982); see also State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 7 1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr.
Minn. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn. 1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David Laurence Hodges v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Appellate courts “generally will not interfere with 10 sentences that are within the presumptive sentence range” and will “modify a sentence that is within the presumptive sentence range” only when there are “compelling circumstances.” State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn. 1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Minnesota v. Corey Lee Melde
Minn. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn. 1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Delk
Minn. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
This court will generally not exercise its authority to modify a sentence within the presumptive range “absent compelling circumstances.” State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn.1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Elting
Minn. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn.1982); State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hendrickson
Minn. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn.1982); Massey v. State, 352 N.W.2d 487, 489 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 16, 1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Schwab
Minn. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn.1982).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Stafford
Minn. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn.1982); State v. Scott, 373 N.W.2d 661, 663 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), pet. for rev. denied, (Minn. Oct. 24, 1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Massey v. State
Minn. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn.1982); State v. Montalvo, 324 N.W.2d 650, 652 (Minn.1982). 2.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Kennedy
Minn. · 1984 · confidence medium
Cases supporting the sentence include: State v. Williams, 337 N.W.2d 387, 390 (Minn.1983); State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn.1982); State v. Montalvo, 324 N.W.2d 650, 652 (Minn.1982); State v. Profit, 323 N.W.2d 34, 36 (Minn.1982); State v. Burgess, 319 N.W.2d 418 (Minn.1982); and State v. Lindsey, 314 N.W.2d 823, 824-25 (Minn.1982).
cited Cited "see" State of Minnesota v. Gavin Patrick Meany
Minn. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn. 1982); State v. Kraft, 326 N.W.2d 840, 842 (Minn. 1982); State v. Delk, 781 N.W.2d 426, 428 (Minn. App. 2010).
cited Cited "see" State v. Berg
Minn. Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn.1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State of Minnesota v. Kanishka Shereal Molina
Minn. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence medium
We review a district court’s sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion and will not interfere “as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” State v. Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d 77, 80-81 (Minn. App. 1985); see also State v. Franklin, 604 N.W.2d 79, 82 (Minn. 2000). “[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal” of a presumptive sentence, State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981), and appellate courts should modify presumptive sentences only under “compelling circumstance…
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Hines
Minn. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Freyer, 328 N.W.2d 140 (Minn.1982); State v. Kraft, 326 N.W.2d 840 (Minn.1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Glenn A. FREYER, Appellant
82-573.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Dec 30, 1982.
328 N.W.2d 140
C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Susan K. Maki, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas L. Johnson, County Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, Chief, Appellate Div., Thomas A. Weist, Rick Osborne, Beverly J. Wolfe and William Neiman, Asst. County Attys., Minneapolis, for respondent.
Amdahl.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published
AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from judgment of conviction which raises only a sentencing issue, specifically, whether the trial court was too harsh when it sentenced defendant to three consecutive prison terms of 90 months each or a total of 270 months for three aggravated robbery convictions based on separate robberies committed on different dates against three different victims. Defendant concedes that the use of consecutive sentencing did not constitute a departure but nonetheless urges us to exercise our discretion and reduce his sentence on the ground that it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of his criminal conduct. We affirm.

Defendant, who is 50, was first convicted of a felony in 1950 and was convicted of other felonies subsequent to 1950 and prior to the current offenses and he has spent a significant part of his adult life in prison as a result of persistent criminal activity. There was a period of years following his release from prison in 1970 when petitioner apparently managed to stay out of trouble with the law. However, in 1981 he lost his job in California and returned to Minnesota and went on what can only be described as a crime spree, committing a large number of aggravated robberies — at least nine in Hennepin County and three in Dakota County — using a sawed-off shotgun. In one of the robberies defendant fired at or near an employee who pursued him and the employee suffered minor injuries.

Pursuant to plea agreements, defendant pleaded guilty to three of the Hennepin County robberies and two of the Dakota County robberies. He was sentenced in Hennepin County to three mandatory minimum 5-year prison terms pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.11, subd. 5 (Supp.1981). These[*142] terms translated into Guidelines terms of 90 months each pursuant to Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, II.E. (1982). The trial court made the terms consecutive to each other pursuant to II.F.2. (1982), which authorizes consecutive sentences “When the offender is convicted of multiple current felony convictions for crimes against different persons, and when the sentence for the most severe current conviction is executed according to the guidelines.” Defendant was sentenced in Dakota County to two more 90-month prison terms but the court there ordered the sentences to run concurrently with each other and with the previously imposed terms for the Hennepin County offenses.

This appeal concerns the Hennepin County sentences. Defendant concedes that the use of consecutive sentencing was proper under Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, II.F.2. (1982) and under State v. Lindsey, 314 N.W.2d 823 (Minn.1982). However, defendant argues that the sentence arrived at by use of consecutive sentencing and mandatory minimum terms in this case is grossly disproportionate to the severity of defendant’s criminal conduct.

In State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6 (Minn.1981), we indicated that we generally will not interfere with sentences that are within the presumptive sentence range. See also State v. Kraft, 326 N.W.2d 840 (Minn.1982). Thus, although we have the authority, if the circumstances warrant, to modify a sentence that is within the presumptive sentence range, we generally will not exercise that authority absent compelling circumstances.

We decline to exercise our discretion to reduce defendant’s sentence.

Affirmed.