Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases, 1975–1998 · leading case:
State v. Sapiel, 432 A.2d 1262 (Me. 1981).
State v. Sapiel, 432 A.2d 1262 (Me. 1981).
· cites it 5× “The following day the same jury returned a guilty verdict on an ancillary indictment for habitual theft, 15 M.R.S.A. § 757 (1980). 2 Appealing from the judgments entered thereon in Superior Court, the Defendant raises five issues, contending: (1) the war-rantless search and…”
State v. Parker, 372 A.2d 570 (Me. 1977).
· cites it 2× “offense” punishment under Section 2384 may be lawfully imposed in any event only if the procedures of 15 M.R.S.A. § 757 2 are utilized. Here, it is beyond question that such procedures were not followed and, says defendant, the presiding Justice therefore acted beyond his powers…”
State v. Wilson, 671 A.2d 958 (Me. 1996).
· cites it 4× “15 M.R.S.A. § 757 authorizes the use by the State of “ancillary” charging instruments to allege the existence of a criminal defendant’s prior convictions.”
State v. Keith, 595 A.2d 1019 (Me. 1991).
· cites it 4× “2d 347, 350 (1951); 15 M.R.S.A. § 757 (Supp.1990). Keith is correct that the State’s failure to allege the previous conviction would preclude the court from imposing a mandatory penalty based on that prior conviction pursuant to section 1312-B(2)(C).”
State v. Brooks, 656 A.2d 1205 (Me. 1995).
· cites it 4× “15 M.R.S.A. § 757(1) (Supp.1994) provides that when a sentence will be enhanced based on a prior conviction, the prior conviction must be specially "alleged as part of a count in the complaint, information or indictment" or in an ancillary charging instrument that "may be filed…”
Landry v. State, 575 A.2d 315 (Me. 1990).
· cites it 2× “3 The procedure for alleging and proving enhanced theft is set out in 15 M.R.S.A. § 757 (Supp.1989). 4 Section .”
State v. House, 481 A.2d 1129 (Me. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Defendant argues that 15 M.R.S.A. § 757 (Supp.1983-1984), 2 requires the granting of a mistrial.”
Benedix v. Sec'y of State, 603 A.2d 473 (Me. 1992).
“1991), we also relied upon 15 M.R.S.A. § 757 (Supp.1991), which then and now provides in pertinent part: § 757.”
State v. Leavitt, 625 A.2d 302 (Me. 1993).
“15 M.R.S.A. § 757(3) (Supp.1992) provides: If the name and date of birth of the person charged with the current principal offense are the same as those of the person who has been convicted or adjudicated of the prior offense, it shall be presumed that the person charged with the…”
State v. Melvin, 341 A.2d 376 (Me. 1975).
“15 M.R.S.A. §§ 757, 1742. We recognized in State v.”
State v. Corliss, 1998 ME 36 (Me. 1998).
“15 M.R.S.A. § 757(1) (1980 & Supp.1997) (“[A] prior conviction shall be specially alleged if the sentencing provision of any crime requires that a present sentence be enhanced because the defendant has been previously convicted of a specified crime_”).”
State v. Dwyer, 532 A.2d 691 (Me. 1987).
“1986); 15 M.R.S.A. § 757 (Supp.1986); Me.Dist.Ct.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 757(1) — 4 cases
State v. Wilson, 671 A.2d 958 (Me. 1996).
“15 M.R.S.A. § 757 authorizes the use by the State of “ancillary” charging instruments to allege the existence of a criminal defendant’s prior convictions.”
State v. Brooks, 656 A.2d 1205 (Me. 1995).
“15 M.R.S.A. § 757(1) (Supp.1994) provides that when a sentence will be enhanced based on a prior conviction, the prior conviction must be specially "alleged as part of a count in the complaint, information or indictment" or in an ancillary charging instrument that "may be filed…”
State v. House, 481 A.2d 1129 (Me. 1984).
“Defendant argues that 15 M.R.S.A. § 757 (Supp.1983-1984), 2 requires the granting of a mistrial.”
State v. Corliss, 1998 ME 36 (Me. 1998).
“15 M.R.S.A. § 757(1) (1980 & Supp.1997) (“[A] prior conviction shall be specially alleged if the sentencing provision of any crime requires that a present sentence be enhanced because the defendant has been previously convicted of a specified crime_”).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 757(3) — 1 case
State v. Leavitt, 625 A.2d 302 (Me. 1993).
“15 M.R.S.A. § 757(3) (Supp.1992) provides: If the name and date of birth of the person charged with the current principal offense are the same as those of the person who has been convicted or adjudicated of the prior offense, it shall be presumed that the person charged with the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.