Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Prudhomme, 228 N.W.2d 243.

80 citing documents.

A24-1308 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
ed for resentencing “the district court should have discretion to allow additional arguments related to a custody status point.” Moore argues that, if the case is remanded, “the district court cannot impose a sentence any greater than the 30-month prison sentenced already imposed because State v. Prudhomme prohibits the imposition of a greater sentence for a previously sentenced conviction.”
State of Minnesota v. Gavin Patrick Meany Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Gavin Patrick Meany Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(instructing district court with respect to resentencing on remand pursuant to Holmes).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(holding that the district court may not impose a greater sentence when resentencing a defendant for the same crime on remand).
Followed Minn. 2020
A defendant, however, “may not be sentenced for more than one crime for each victim” when the defendant has “a single criminal objective.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Prudhomme , (holding that a district court, when resentencing a defendant, may not “increase the penalty for any of the offenses on which it will sentence defendant”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-68 (Minn. 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 r
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The court found this difference “insignificant” and held that to allow the imposition of a greater sentence than that originally imposed would “violate the spirit of the Holmes case,” -46 (Minn. 1975).
Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018
Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018
Stangvik v. Tahash , 281 Minn. 353 , , 672 (1968) ; see also State v. Prudhomme , 303 Minn. 376 , , 245 (1975) (explaining that "a different application of [ section 609.035 ] is appropriate where there are multiple victims"); State v. Krampotich , 282 Minn. 182 , , 776 n.7 (1968) (explaining that section 609.035 does "not apply where the conduct constituted separate crimes intentio
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Prudhomme , 303 Minn. 376, 380
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376, 380
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Prudhomme , 303 Minn. 376, 380, (stating that after a sentence has been set aside, district court must not resentence defendant to a longer sentence).
State of Minnesota v. Scott James Boorman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott James Boorman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376, 380, 380 n.2, 246 n.2 (1975) (limiting a district court’s discretion in resentencing to the “sum total” of the original sentence imposed).1 Reversed and remanded.
State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry Minn. Ct. App. 2016
303 Minn. 376, 380, review denied (July 20, 2010).
Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kabba Kangbateh 868 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kabba Kangbateh 868 N.W.2d 10 Minn. 2015
Based on that assertion, he claims his sentence violates the public policy and fairness concerns articulated in State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376, 380
State of Minnesota v. James David Gertz, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James David Gertz, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
On resentencing after a sentence has been set aside in a successful appeal, the district court “may not impose a more severe penalty than the sentence which it previously imposed.” State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376, 380
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 also addressed this issue in State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376, but this time in the context of resentencing rather than retrial.
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. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376, 378-80 , -46 (1975).
State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
State v. Ferguson 808 N.W.2d 586 Minn. 2012
State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376, 379
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. Pflepsen 590 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1999
State v. Pflepsen 590 N.W.2d 759 Minn. 1999
State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376, 380 , (citing Holmes, 281 Minn. at 298 , d at 653 ).
State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Kissner 541 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
§ 609.035 is “to protect against exaggerating the criminality of a person’s conduct.” State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376, 379 , (citing People v. Ridley, 63 Cal.2d 671 , 47 Cal.Rptr.
State v. Martinez 530 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Martinez 530 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Section 609.035 shields a defendant “from harassment by repeated prosecution for the same conduct.” State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376, 378
State v. Alt 529 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Alt 529 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376, 378
State v. Coe 404 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Coe 404 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
at 200 (quoting State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376, 380 , ) (emphasis supplied).
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
See also State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376, 380 , -35 (Minn.Ct.App.1986).
Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986