Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wakefield, 263 N.W.2d 76.

28 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
9 Appellant’s reliance on State v. Wakefield , for the argument that his sentence is presumptively concurrent is similarly misguided.
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Wayne Taleronik Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Wayne Taleronik Minn. Ct. App. 2023
there is a prior felony sentence that has not expired or been discharged, concurrent sentencing is presumptive”); (holding a state sentence is presumed to run concurrent “when there has been no specific determination by the trial court.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Jerde also points to instances in which Minnesota sentences have been permitted to run concurrently with out-of-state sentences, d 76, 77-78 (Minn. 1978), and State v. Jennings
A19-0270 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The defendant in Roy relied on State v. 7 Wakefield, as Thorsen does here.
State v. Roy 928 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2019
State v. Roy 928 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2019
As support, Roy cites State v. Wakefield , , 77 (Minn. 1978).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(holding that a state sentence imposed after a federal sentence “must be presumed to run concurrently with the Federal sentence when there has been no specif ic determination by the trial court”).
State of Minnesota v. Toni Ann Olmstead Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Toni Ann Olmstead Minn. Ct. App. 2014
4(A); (providing that “precise terms of the sentence” include whether multiple sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively).
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
the supreme court addressed a situation in which the first sentence was a federal sentence and the second was a state sentence.
State v. Gilbert 634 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Gilbert 634 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
4(A); (“precise terms of the sentence” includes whether multiple sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively).
State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
State v. Willis 559 N.W.2d 693 Minn. 1997
While it is true that the statute applies only to Minnesota courts, appellant’s argument is without merit.
State v. Rasinski 527 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Rasinski 527 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
4(A); (“precise terms of the sentence” includes whether multiple sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively).
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
State v. Gassler 505 N.W.2d 62 Minn. 1993
Although we have previously held that when a trial court is silent on whether a sentence is to be served consecutively or concurrently, a later state-imposed sentence should run concurrently with an earlier federally-imposed sentence, the trial court is given broad discretion within the sentencing guidelines to depart from presumptive sentences.
State v. Sundstrom 474 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Sundstrom 474 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
where a federal sentence was imposed prior to a Minnesota sentence, the Minnesota Supreme Court refused to follow Petersen.
State v. Schaeffer 452 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Schaeffer 452 N.W.2d 719 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
2248 , 90 L.Ed.2d 694 (1986); State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514, 525 , State v. Goblirsch, 309 Minn. 401, 407 , State v. Perry, 274 Minn. 1, 12-13 , pet.
State v. Jennings 448 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Jennings 448 N.W.2d 374 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. MacK 292 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 1980
State v. MacK 292 N.W.2d 764 Minn. 1980
7 State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 220-21 , -65 (1952); State v. Goblirsch, 309 Minn. 401 , State v. Hill, 312 Minn. 514