Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 609. CRIMINAL CODE
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 609.1352 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1998 c 367 art 6 s 16]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases, 1992–2015 · leading case: State v. Christie, 506 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Christie, 506 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. 1993). · cites it 16× “This case stems from the increased sentence appellant received as a result of the application of the patterned sex offender statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.1352 (1990). The presumptive sentence for the offense to which appellant pleaded guilty, first degree burglary, was 68 months…”
State v. Danforth, 573 N.W.2d 369 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 22× “The state argues that the district court erred by departing from statutory mandates in implementing Minn.Stat. § 609.1352 (1996) in that it failed to sentence Danforth to an executed term of imprisonment of not less than double the presumptive sentence.”
State v. Halvorson, 506 N.W.2d 331 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 14× “Minn.Stat. § 609.1352, subd. 1 (1990). Halvorson does not dispute the finding that he is a patterned sex offender under the statute.”
State v. Boehl, 726 N.W.2d 831 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 16× “The state moved the district court'to depart from the sentencing guidelines and impose an enhanced sentence under the patterned-sex-offender statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.1352, subd. 1 (1996) 1 (subsequently codified at Minn.”
State v. Stirens, 506 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 1993). · cites it 10× “This case involves a constitutional challenge to an upward durational departure as the result of an application of the patterned sex offender statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.1352 (1990). Appellant was convicted of one count of second degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Minn.”
State v. Wukawitz, 662 N.W.2d 517 (Minn. 2003). · cites it 2× “Laws at 1991 (codified at Minn.Stat. § 609.1352, subd. 5 (1992)).”
State v. Barber, 494 N.W.2d 497 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 10× “The presumptive sentence provided for in the sentencing guidelines was 110 months.”
Spears v. State, 725 N.W.2d 696 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 4× “After the second remand, the district court imposed the present 40-year sentence for one count of criminal sexual conduct and 5-year sentence for one count of kidnapping, to be served consecutively with the 40-year sentence. The 40-year sentence is an enhancement of the…”
State v. Christie, 494 N.W.2d 492 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 12× “Following the sentencing hearing, appellant was sentenced as a patterned sex offender under Minn.Stat. § 609.1352 (Supp. 1989), and given the 240-month statutory maximum for first degree burglary.”
In Re Blodgett, 510 N.W.2d 910 (Minn. 1994). · cites it 2× “[11] This court has found constitutional the patterned sex offender statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.1352 (1990), which provides for enhanced sentences, State v.”
In Re Ashman, 608 N.W.2d 853 (Minn. 2000). · cites it 4× “10 year sentence under Minn.Stat. § 609.1352. 2 Court will not refer for judicial commitment.”
Meemken v. State, 662 N.W.2d 146 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “On May 29, 1998, the district court sentenced appellant as a patterned sex offender under Minn.Stat. § 609.1352, subd. 1a (1996), and ordered him to serve a 240-month prison sentence for the attempt conviction.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
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.