Maine Revised Statutes
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256 (2026)
Multiple sentences of imprisonment
✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1981, c. 324, §34 (NEW). PL 1983, c. 408, §§3,4 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 282, §7 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 821, §14 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 361, §6 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 739, §2 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 522, §1 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 458, §1 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 788, §9 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 329, §4 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 142, §8 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 133, §17 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 113, Pt. A, §1 (RP).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60
cases, 1982–2020 · leading case: State v. Keene, 2007 ME 84, 927 A.2d 398.
State v. Keene, 2007 ME 84, 927 A.2d 398. “He argues that 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256 (1983 & Supp.2003), [1] which authorized the court to impose consecutive sentences for his manslaughter and kidnapping convictions, is unconstitutional as applied to his case.”
State v. Commeau, 2004 ME 78, 852 A.2d 70. “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256 (1983 & Supp.2003). The analysis starts from the assumption that multiple sentences will run concurrently, unless the court makes specific findings.”
State of Maine v. Andrew B. Bean, 2018 ME 58, 184 A.3d 373. “See 17-A M.R.S. § 1256(2)(A), (C) (2017); State v.”
State v. Ward, 2011 ME 74, 21 A.3d 1033. “lectively, violated his constitutional protection against cruel or unusual punishment; (2) when the court found the facts necessary to impose consecutive sentences, resulting in a longer period of incarceration than the statutory maximum for any of his convictions individually,…”
State of Maine v. Theodore S. Stanislaw, 2013 ME 43, 65 A.3d 1242. “[¶13] The court then turned to consider whether to impose consecutive sentences pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1256(2) (2012). The court concluded that a sentence for each Class B and Class C offense that was consecutive to the sentences for all other Class B and C offenses was…”
State v. Hofland, 2012 ME 129, 58 A.3d 1023. “[¶ 26] Pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1256(2)(A), (D) (2011), a court may impose consecutive sentences if “the convictions are for offenses based on different conduct or arising from different criminal episodes,” or if “the seriousness of the criminal conduct involved in either a…”
State v. Perry, 2017 ME 74, 159 A.3d 840. “; see 17-A M.R.S. § 1256(2) (2016). Title 17-A § 1256(2)(A) and (D) provide that a court may impose consecutive sentences when the circumstances of the crimes are particularly serious or where “the convictions are for offenses based on different conduct or arising from different…”
James v. State, 2008 ME 122, 953 A.2d 1152. “Pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256 (Supp.2004), [1] James's twelve-year sentence was interrupted so that he could serve this three-year sentence first.”
State v. Mahan, 1998 ME 143, 711 A.2d 1314. “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256. 5 . 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256(8) (Supp.”
State v. Horr, 2003 ME 110, 831 A.2d 407. “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256(2) (1983 & Supp. 2002) (“The sentences shall be concurrent unless, in considering the following factors, the court decides to impose sentences consecutively[.”
State v. Michaud, 590 A.2d 538 (Me. 1991). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256(2); see State v. Walsh, 558 A.”
State v. Sweet, 2000 ME 14, 745 A.2d 368. “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256(2) (1983 & Supp.1999).”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256(1): 3 cases
James v. State, 2008 ME 122, 953 A.2d 1152. “Pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256 (Supp.2004), [1] James's twelve-year sentence was interrupted so that he could serve this three-year sentence first.”
State v. Priest, 615 A.2d 244 (Me. 1992).
Chestnut v. State, 669 A.2d 1336 (Me. 1996).
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256(1H3): 1 case
State v. Dadiego, 617 A.2d 552 (Me. 1992).
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256(2): 26 cases
State v. Keene, 2007 ME 84, 927 A.2d 398. “He argues that 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256 (1983 & Supp.2003), [1] which authorized the court to impose consecutive sentences for his manslaughter and kidnapping convictions, is unconstitutional as applied to his case.”
State of Maine v. Theodore S. Stanislaw, 2013 ME 43, 65 A.3d 1242. “[¶13] The court then turned to consider whether to impose consecutive sentences pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1256(2) (2012). The court concluded that a sentence for each Class B and Class C offense that was consecutive to the sentences for all other Class B and C offenses was…”
State v. Ward, 2011 ME 74, 21 A.3d 1033. “lectively, violated his constitutional protection against cruel or unusual punishment; (2) when the court found the facts necessary to impose consecutive sentences, resulting in a longer period of incarceration than the statutory maximum for any of his convictions individually,…”
State v. Commeau, 2004 ME 78, 852 A.2d 70. “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256 (1983 & Supp.2003). The analysis starts from the assumption that multiple sentences will run concurrently, unless the court makes specific findings.”
State v. Cloutier, 646 A.2d 358 (Me. 1994).
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256(2)(A): 18 cases
State of Maine v. Andrew B. Bean, 2018 ME 58, 184 A.3d 373. “See 17-A M.R.S. § 1256(2)(A), (C) (2017); State v.”
State v. Sweet, 2000 ME 14, 745 A.2d 368. “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256(2) (1983 & Supp.1999).”
State of Maine v. Gabriel J. Hansen, 2020 ME 43, 228 A.3d 1082.
State v. Perry, 2017 ME 74, 159 A.3d 840. “; see 17-A M.R.S. § 1256(2) (2016). Title 17-A § 1256(2)(A) and (D) provide that a court may impose consecutive sentences when the circumstances of the crimes are particularly serious or where “the convictions are for offenses based on different conduct or arising from different…”
State v. Downs, 2007 ME 41, 916 A.2d 210.
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256(2)(B): 4 cases
State v. Keene, 2007 ME 84, 927 A.2d 398. “He argues that 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256 (1983 & Supp.2003), [1] which authorized the court to impose consecutive sentences for his manslaughter and kidnapping convictions, is unconstitutional as applied to his case.”
State v. Winchenbach, 501 A.2d 1282 (Me. 1985).
State v. Labbe, 2009 ME 94, 979 A.2d 693.
Parsons v. State of Maine, No. KENcr-02-469 (Me. Super. Ct Jan. 7, 2004).
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256(2)(D): 17 cases
State v. Perry, 2017 ME 74, 159 A.3d 840. “; see 17-A M.R.S. § 1256(2) (2016). Title 17-A § 1256(2)(A) and (D) provide that a court may impose consecutive sentences when the circumstances of the crimes are particularly serious or where “the convictions are for offenses based on different conduct or arising from different…”
State v. Keene, 2007 ME 84, 927 A.2d 398. “He argues that 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256 (1983 & Supp.2003), [1] which authorized the court to impose consecutive sentences for his manslaughter and kidnapping convictions, is unconstitutional as applied to his case.”
State v. Mahan, 1998 ME 143, 711 A.2d 1314. “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256. 5 . 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256(8) (Supp.”
State v. Michaud, 590 A.2d 538 (Me. 1991). “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256(2); see State v. Walsh, 558 A.”
State v. Horr, 2003 ME 110, 831 A.2d 407. “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256(2) (1983 & Supp. 2002) (“The sentences shall be concurrent unless, in considering the following factors, the court decides to impose sentences consecutively[.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256(3): 4 cases
State v. Hofland, 2012 ME 129, 58 A.3d 1023. “[¶ 26] Pursuant to 17-A M.R.S. § 1256(2)(A), (D) (2011), a court may impose consecutive sentences if “the convictions are for offenses based on different conduct or arising from different criminal episodes,” or if “the seriousness of the criminal conduct involved in either a…”
State v. Ward, 2011 ME 74, 21 A.3d 1033. “lectively, violated his constitutional protection against cruel or unusual punishment; (2) when the court found the facts necessary to impose consecutive sentences, resulting in a longer period of incarceration than the statutory maximum for any of his convictions individually,…”
State v. Shulikov, 1998 ME 111, 712 A.2d 504.
State v. Dadiego, 617 A.2d 552 (Me. 1992).
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256(3)(A): 1 case
State v. Commeau, 2004 ME 78, 852 A.2d 70. “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256 (1983 & Supp.2003). The analysis starts from the assumption that multiple sentences will run concurrently, unless the court makes specific findings.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256(3)(B): 13 cases
State v. Commeau, 2004 ME 78, 852 A.2d 70. “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256 (1983 & Supp.2003). The analysis starts from the assumption that multiple sentences will run concurrently, unless the court makes specific findings.”
State of Maine v. Andrew B. Bean, 2018 ME 58, 184 A.3d 373. “See 17-A M.R.S. § 1256(2)(A), (C) (2017); State v.”
State v. Keene, 2007 ME 84, 927 A.2d 398. “He argues that 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256 (1983 & Supp.2003), [1] which authorized the court to impose consecutive sentences for his manslaughter and kidnapping convictions, is unconstitutional as applied to his case.”
State v. Fleming, 644 A.2d 1034 (Me. 1994).
State v. Horr, 2003 ME 110, 831 A.2d 407. “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256(2) (1983 & Supp. 2002) (“The sentences shall be concurrent unless, in considering the following factors, the court decides to impose sentences consecutively[.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256(3)(C): 1 case
State v. Horr, 2003 ME 110, 831 A.2d 407. “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256(2) (1983 & Supp. 2002) (“The sentences shall be concurrent unless, in considering the following factors, the court decides to impose sentences consecutively[.”
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256(4): 3 cases
State v. Commeau, 2004 ME 78, 852 A.2d 70. “See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256 (1983 & Supp.2003). The analysis starts from the assumption that multiple sentences will run concurrently, unless the court makes specific findings.”
State of Maine v. Gabriel J. Hansen, 2020 ME 43, 228 A.3d 1082.
State v. Powers, 489 A.2d 4 (Me. 1985).
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256(6): 1 case
State v. Kniffin, 604 A.2d 900 (Me. 1992).
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256(7): 1 case
State v. Newbert, 2007 ME 110, 928 A.2d 769.
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256(8): 5 cases
State v. Billadeau, 597 A.2d 414 (Me. 1991).
State v. Mahan, 1998 ME 143, 711 A.2d 1314. “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256. 5 . 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256(8) (Supp.”
State v. Dadiego, 617 A.2d 552 (Me. 1992).
State v. Pettingill, 611 A.2d 88 (Me. 1992).
State of Maine v. Sanborn, No. CUMcr-07-2091 (Me. Super. Ct Jan. 28, 2019).
Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1256(l): 1 case
State v. Mahan, 1998 ME 143, 711 A.2d 1314. “17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256. 5 . 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1256(8) (Supp.”
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.