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. Gilbert, 262 N.W.2d 334.

34 citing documents.

  • A19-1493 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    20 objective); (concluding that selling drugs to relieve financial hardship is too broad to constitute a single criminal objective); (concluding that “general hatred of women,” is too broad to constitute a single criminal objective) ; Jackson, d at 394 (concluding that a “willingness to react with deadly force when faced with little or no provocation” is too broad to constitute a single criminal objective ).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    State v. Gould , (affirming use of the Hernandez method because relieving financial hardship is too broad to constitute a single criminal objective); (affirming use of Hernandez method because selling drugs to relieve financial hardship is too broad to constitute a single criminal objective); ( affirming multiple sentences because the identified criminal objective, “general hatred of women,” is too broad to constitute a single criminal objective).
  • State of Minnesota v. Dominic Jason Allen Sam 859 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Dominic Jason Allen Sam 859 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    (holding that an imposition of the minimum sentence for possession of a firearm in Minn. Stat. § 609.11, subd.
  • State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
    See, e.g., Bauer, d at 830 (sharing drugs with friends for no profit was not a single criminal objective); (making as much money as possible was not a single criminal objective); (“general hatred of women” was too broad to constitute a single criminal objective).
  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
    (noting that a search warrant is typically required for a sample of blood).
  • State v. Skipintheday 717 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Skipintheday 717 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 2006
    See, -47 (Minn.1979) (multiple murders merited multiple sentences); (an aggravated assault and a sex crime merited multiple sentences); -06 (Minn.1977) (three sentences merited for defendant who fired 20 bullets at three victims); -83 (Minn.1983) (where multiple deaths were a reasonably
  • State v. Ruoho 685 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Ruoho 685 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Mix 646 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Mix 646 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    (court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily and capriciously); (court abuses its discretion if its findings are contrary to the law); (court abuses its discretion if it does not justify sentencing decision on the record), review denied (Minn. Mar.
  • State v. Schmidt 612 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Schmidt 612 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 2000
  • In Re the Welfare of J.W.K. 574 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • In Re the Welfare of J.W.K. 574 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Dickerson 481 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Dickerson 481 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1992
    The trial court’s findings “will not be reversed upon review unless clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Brown 433 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Brown 433 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    v. Kornexl, (the definition of “second or subsequent offense” “allow[s] the underlying statute to define the type of offense or violation and the sanction that will result”); Higginbotham, d at 329 (the defendant’s present offense was “his second conviction of one of the offenses listed in subdivision 9 while armed with a firearm”); (imposition of a minimum sentence under Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Martinson 422 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Martinson 422 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Watts v. State 305 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1981
  • Watts v. State 305 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1981
  • State v. Stith 292 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Stith 292 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 1980
    State v. Gamelgard, 287 Minn. 74
  • State v. Hamilton 289 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Hamilton 289 N.W.2d 470 Minn. 1979
  • State v. Powless 272 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Powless 272 N.W.2d 258 Minn. 1978
    State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394