DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Holmes, 161 N.W.2d 650.

65 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Gavin Patrick Meany Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota v. Gavin Patrick Meany Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    We begin by considering Meany’s state-law argument
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    The supreme court has held that it was improper for a district court “to impose on a defendant who has secured a new trial a sentence more onerous than the one he initially received.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    1999); d 85, 88 (Minn. 1982) (prohibiting district court from imposing “a more severe penalty than the sentence which it previously imp osed”); State v. Prudhomme , (holding that after a sentence has been set aside, a district court must not resentence defendant to a longer sentence for the same crime); d 650, 656-57 (Minn. 1968) (prohibiting court from imposing a more severe sentence after defendant’s successful appeal results in remand for a new trial).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    1 The supreme court adopted the view “that any increase in penalty upon a retrial inevitably discourages a convicted defendant from exercising his legal rights and is contrary to public policy .” Id.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294, 303- 04, -57 (1968).
  • State of Minnesota v. Kabba Kangbateh 868 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    The supreme court considered the issue of resentencing after a retrial in State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294
  • Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2015
  • Myon Demarlo Burrell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 2015
    We affirmed Burrell’s convictions following the second trial but remanded to correct the sentence because the district court had improperly imposed a longer sentence in the second trial, in violation of State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294, 296
  • State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
  • State v. Vang 847 N.W.2d 248 Minn. 2014
    Appellant does not challenge his sentence on constitutional grounds 8 but instead relies upon a policy the court adopted in State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294
  • State v. Beane 840 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Beane 840 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294, 296
  • State v. Chavarria-Cruz 839 N.W.2d 515 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Delk 781 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Delk 781 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    See State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294 , State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376
  • State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Burrell 772 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2009
    The longer sentence is unlawful under State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294, 296
  • State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jackson 749 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2008
    As a matter of judicial policy in Minnesota, “a court cannot ‘impose on a defendant who has secured a new trial a sentence more onerous than the one he initially received.’” (quoting State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294, 296 , ).
  • State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    2072, 2080 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969) (overruled on other grounds); State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294, 298
  • Hankerson v. State 723 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2006
  • Hankerson v. State 723 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2006
    5 Consistent *241 with the recognition in Ring II that the second sentence cannot exceed the first, we acknowledge that in Minnesota, as a matter of judicial policy, a court cannot “impose on a defendant who has secured a new trial a sentence more onerous than the one he initially received.” State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294, 296
  • State v. Thompson 617 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Thompson 617 N.W.2d 609 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    See State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294, 302 , -56 (1968) (holding where defendant granted new trial on appeal, district court may not impose greater sentence after subsequent conviction than original sentence imposed).
  • State v. Pflepsen 590 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Pflepsen 590 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1999
    In State v. Holmes, *768 281 Minn. 294 , we established a general rule of law that, upon reeonviction or resentencing after an appeal, a district court may not impose a harsher sentence than was imposed after the original trial.
  • State v. Coe 404 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Coe 404 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294, 298 , (“any increase in penalty upon a retrial inevitably discourages a convicted defendant from exercising his legal rights and is contrary to public policy.”)
  • State v. Sheppheard 407 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Sheppheard 407 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    See State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376, 380 , State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294, 298
  • State v. Hatton 405 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hatton 405 N.W.2d 498 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294, 298
  • State v. Nunn 399 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Nunn 399 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    (citing State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294 , ).
  • State v. Alexander 398 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Alexander 398 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Holmes, 281 Minn 294, 295
  • Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See also State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294, 298 , (“any increase in penalty upon a retrial inevitably discourages a convicted defendant from exercising his legal rights and is contrary to public policy”)
  • State v. Carver 390 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Carver 390 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    In State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294 , the supreme court held that where a defendant is granted a new trial on appeal, the trial court may not impose a greater sentence after a subsequent conviction than was imposed after a first conviction.
  • State v. Turnipseed 297 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Turnipseed 297 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1980
    E. g., State v. Annis, 308 Minn. 232 , State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294
  • State v. Spaulding 296 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Spaulding 296 N.W.2d 870 Minn. 1980
    In State v. Holmes, 281 Minn. 294 , this court held that the imposition of a longer sentence after a new trial and second conviction for the same offense was a violation of public policy.