State v. Leibfried
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1990, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Liebfried (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- State v. Skinner (Minn. Ct. App. 1990)
- State v. Morrison (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)
- State v. Campion (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This is a sentencing appeal.
Defendant, charged with aggravated forgery, four counts of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and misdemeanor counts of driving after revocation and failing to stop and give information after an accident, entered guilty pleas to all the felony counts in exchange for the prosecutor’s agreement to dismiss the misdemeanor counts and to recommend that the sentences for all the offenses run concurrently. Defendant waived a presentence investigation report and asked for immediate sentencing.
The prosecutor stated that under the Guidelines he believed the presumptive sentence would be 12 months probation because defendant had a criminal history score of zero and the offenses were all severity level I offenses. However, he urged the trial court to depart. Defense counsel argued for a stay of imposition pursuant to the Guidelines.
The trial court sentenced defendant to five years in prison for the aggravated forgery and stayed imposition of sentence for the other convictions but failed to provide reasons justifying departure. We therefore remand for resentencing.
On remand, the trial court, in determining whether to depart, should follow the approach set forth in State v. Garcia, 302 N.W.2d 643 (Minn. 1981). Specifically, it should (1) consider whether any mitigating or aggravating factors are present, (2) determine whether these circumstances are substantial and compelling circumstances justifying departure, and (3) if there are substantial and compelling circumstances, decide whether or not to depart. If the trial court decides to depart, it must make any necessary findings and give reasons justifying its decision so that meaningful review of the departure is possible. If the *37 court concludes that there are no substantial and compelling circumstances present, then the court should follow the presumptive sentence established by the Guidelines. We note that under the Guidelines the trial court is free to require, as a condition of probation, that the defendant spend up to a year in jail.
Remanded for resentencing.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.