Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1978–2004 · leading case:
State v. Bunker, 436 A.2d 413 (Me. 1981).
State v. Bunker, 436 A.2d 413 (Me. 1981).
· cites it 7× “Moreover, as our discussion below regarding the imposition of consecutive sentences reveals more specifically, 6 the concern that kidnapping charges can be exploited by the prosecution to impose more onerous sentences for conduct which only facilitates another crime is precluded…”
State v. Williams, 395 A.2d 1158 (Me. 1978).
· cites it 3× “He now asserts that, even though he was sentenced under pre-Code law, he is entitled to the protection of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155(5)(B) because such provision merely satisfied the constitutional requirement of due process.”
Bennett v. State, 433 A.2d 431 (Me. 1981).
· cites it 7× “On December 20, 1979, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was “illegally imprisoned” in that the sentencing *433 justice failed to set forth the specific findings required by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155 (1978) 3 when he imposed concurrent…”
State v. Pineo, 2002 ME 93 (Me. 2002).
“[¶ 13] Section 1256(3)(B), like its identical predecessor 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155(5)(B) (Pamph.1978), was intended “to prevent consecutive sentences for offenses which were committed as a part of a single course of conduct during which there was no substantial change in the nature…”
State v. Commeau, 852 A.2d 70 (Me. 2004).
“8 (quoting 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155(3) (Supp.1978)). The Legislature, however, changed the formulation and order of the sections the same year to make it clear that If the court decides to impose consecutive sentences, it shall state its reasons for doing so on the record or in the…”
State v. Chapman, 496 A.2d 297 (Me. 1985).
“Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155 (Pamph.1978), repealed and replaced by 17-A M.”
State v. Flemming, 409 A.2d 220 (Me. 1979).
“17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155(1). Flemming, however, argues that the very act of suspending a sentence to an uncertain future date is illegal, although he cites no specific authority for that proposition, nor does he advance any rationale to support it.”
Rogers v. State, 528 A.2d 462 (Me. 1987).
· cites it 4× “We presume that the presiding justice was aware of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155, which requires consecutive sentences in certain circumstances.”
Rogers v. Sylvester, 570 A.2d 311 (Me. 1990).
· cites it 4× “We presumed that the 1978 Knox County sentencing court was aware of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155 and had not found Rogers guilty of a crime for which section 1155 or any other statute required a consecutive sentence.”
State v. Moores, 396 A.2d 1010 (Me. 1979).
“17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155(5) (1978 Supp.) provides in pertinent part: A defendant may not be sentenced to consecutive terms or cumulative fines for more than one crime when: One crime consists only of a conspiracy, attempt, solicitation or other form of preparation to commit, or…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1155(1) — 3 cases
State v. Flemming, 409 A.2d 220 (Me. 1979).
“17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155(1). Flemming, however, argues that the very act of suspending a sentence to an uncertain future date is illegal, although he cites no specific authority for that proposition, nor does he advance any rationale to support it.”
Rogers v. State, 528 A.2d 462 (Me. 1987).
“We presume that the presiding justice was aware of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155, which requires consecutive sentences in certain circumstances.”
Rogers v. Sylvester, 570 A.2d 311 (Me. 1990).
“We presumed that the 1978 Knox County sentencing court was aware of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155 and had not found Rogers guilty of a crime for which section 1155 or any other statute required a consecutive sentence.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1155(3) — 2 cases
State v. Commeau, 852 A.2d 70 (Me. 2004).
“8 (quoting 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155(3) (Supp.1978)). The Legislature, however, changed the formulation and order of the sections the same year to make it clear that If the court decides to impose consecutive sentences, it shall state its reasons for doing so on the record or in the…”
State v. Bunker, 436 A.2d 413 (Me. 1981).
“Moreover, as our discussion below regarding the imposition of consecutive sentences reveals more specifically, 6 the concern that kidnapping charges can be exploited by the prosecution to impose more onerous sentences for conduct which only facilitates another crime is precluded…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1155(5) — 2 cases
State v. Bunker, 436 A.2d 413 (Me. 1981).
“Moreover, as our discussion below regarding the imposition of consecutive sentences reveals more specifically, 6 the concern that kidnapping charges can be exploited by the prosecution to impose more onerous sentences for conduct which only facilitates another crime is precluded…”
State v. Moores, 396 A.2d 1010 (Me. 1979).
“17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155(5) (1978 Supp.) provides in pertinent part: A defendant may not be sentenced to consecutive terms or cumulative fines for more than one crime when: One crime consists only of a conspiracy, attempt, solicitation or other form of preparation to commit, or…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1155(5)(B) — 3 cases
State v. Bunker, 436 A.2d 413 (Me. 1981).
“Moreover, as our discussion below regarding the imposition of consecutive sentences reveals more specifically, 6 the concern that kidnapping charges can be exploited by the prosecution to impose more onerous sentences for conduct which only facilitates another crime is precluded…”
State v. Williams, 395 A.2d 1158 (Me. 1978).
“He now asserts that, even though he was sentenced under pre-Code law, he is entitled to the protection of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155(5)(B) because such provision merely satisfied the constitutional requirement of due process.”
State v. Pineo, 2002 ME 93 (Me. 2002).
“[¶ 13] Section 1256(3)(B), like its identical predecessor 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1155(5)(B) (Pamph.1978), was intended “to prevent consecutive sentences for offenses which were committed as a part of a single course of conduct during which there was no substantial change in the nature…”
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.