Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mendozagreen2 sentences2015State v. Mendoza, 297 N.W.2d 286, 288 (Minn. 1980) (stating that appellant does not forfeit the issue of multiple sentencing under Minn. Stat. § 609.035 by failing to raise the issue in the trial court). 10 The district court imposed separate, concurrent sentences on the three conviction offenses. 2006State v. White, 300 Minn. 99, 105-106 , 219 N.W.2d 89, 93 (1974); see also Ture v. State, 353 N.W.2d 518, 523 (Minn. 1984); State v. Mendoza, 297 N.W.2d 286, 288 (Minn. 1980). | 2 | 2 |
Ture v. Stategreen2 sentences2006State v. White, 300 Minn. 99, 105-106 , 219 N.W.2d 89, 93 (1974); see also Ture v. State, 353 N.W.2d 518, 523 (Minn. 1984); State v. Mendoza, 297 N.W.2d 286, 288 (Minn. 1980). 2002Id.; see also Ture v. State, 353 N.W.2d 518 , (Minn.1984) (holding defendant’s failure to raise the multiple sentencing issue at the time of sentencing does not constitute a waiver barring him from later raising the issue and obtaining relief); State v. King, 414 N.W.2d 214, 221 (Minn. App.1987) (vacating defendant’s sentence for assault in the third degree under the prohibition on multiple sentencing under Minn.Stat. § 609.035 (1986)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences1980However, the issue of multiple sentencing under § 609.035 was not forfeited by defendant's failure to raise the issue in the trial court. 300 Minn. at 105-06 , 219 N.W.2d at 93 . 1980However, the issue of multiple sentencing under § 609.035 was not forfeited by defendant’s failure to raise the issue in the trial court. 300 Minn, at 105-06, 219 N.W.2d at 93 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hodgesgreen1 sentence2015State v. Hodges, 384 N.W.2d 175, 181-82 (Minn.App.1986), aff'd, 386 N.W.2d 709 (Minn.1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bookwaltergreen1 sentence2015See State v. Bookwalter, 541 N.W.2d 290, 294 (Minn. 1995) (addressing a different exception to the multiple punishment bar and the imposition of punishment for the excepted crime “and the most serious [other] crime committed”). 9 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinggreen1 sentence2002Id.; see also Ture v. State, 353 N.W.2d 518 , (Minn.1984) (holding defendant’s failure to raise the multiple sentencing issue at the time of sentencing does not constitute a waiver barring him from later raising the issue and obtaining relief); State v. King, 414 N.W.2d 214, 221 (Minn. App.1987) (vacating defendant’s sentence for assault in the third degree under the prohibition on multiple sentencing under Minn.Stat. § 609.035 (1986)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hodges
green
1 sentence2015State v. Hodges, 384 N.W.2d 175, 181-82 (Minn.App.1986), aff'd, 386 N.W.2d 709 (Minn.1986). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Koonsman
green
1 sentence1979State v. Koonsman, supra. (c) The actor uses force or coercion to accomplish the penetration; * * *. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.