Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Montalvo, 324 N.W.2d 650.
-
GEP XI Maple Grove LLC, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(noting that appellate courts “cannot presume .
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(noting that appellate courts “cannot presume .
- State of Minnesota v. Gregory Steven Proell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Steven Proell, Jr.
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
so long as the multiple sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” see also Munt, d at 419 (concluding that the “multiple-victim rule” was “within the judicial branch’s authority and does not violate separation-of-powers principles”).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In State v. Montalvo, the supreme court held that an appellant has the burden of proving that the interpretation was “inadequate.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But he has the “burden of proving on appeal that the interpretation was inadequate.” State v. Montalvo , see also State v. Mitjans , (stating that in addressing a claim that errors in translation denied a defendant a fair tria l, this court considers whethe r the translation was “on the whole adequate and accurate”).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, (holding that imposing two sentences for two assault convictions in volving two victims did not unfairly exaggerate criminality of appellant’s conduct ).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Sept.
- State of Minnesota v. Nazar Taher Mohammed Alfahed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Nazar Taher Mohammed Alfahed Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Farah O. Farah Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Farah O. Farah
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
at 223 (affirming conviction when the translation may have inadvertently benefitted the state because defendant could not show tangible prejudice for the specific errors identified); (“We cannot presume .
- State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
- State v. Patterson 796 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
- State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
- State v. Sanchez-Diaz 683 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 2004
- State v. Keeton 573 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
- State v. Keeton 573 N.W.2d 378 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
- State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
- State v. Cole 542 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1996
- State v. Smith 541 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 1996
- State v. Cole 542 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1996
- State v. Her 510 N.W.2d 218 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-
State v. Her
510 N.W.2d 218
Minn. Ct. App. 1994
The defendant has the “burden of proving on appeal that the interpretation was inadequate.”
- State v. Lee 491 N.W.2d 895 Minn. 1992
-
State v. Lee
491 N.W.2d 895
Minn. 1992
§ 609.15, *902 (<); Brom, d at 765 (three consecutive life sentences appropriate where defendant killed family members with an ax); (three consecutive life sentences appropriate where defendant
- State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
-
State v. Rasinski
464 N.W.2d 517
Minn. Ct. App. 1991
“[T]he trial court may impose one sentence per victim in multiple victim cases so long as the multiple sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.”
- State v. Anderson 463 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State v. Anderson 463 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
- State v. Norris 428 N.W.2d 61 Minn. 1988
- State v. Nunn 399 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Nunn 399 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Harris 396 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Harris 396 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Mitjans 394 N.W.2d 221 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Effinger v. State 380 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 1986
- Effinger v. State 380 N.W.2d 483 Minn. 1986
- State v. Crapser 378 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Crapser 378 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Lakin 378 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
State v. Lakin
378 N.W.2d 101
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
stating: Under the multiple-victim exception to the rule of Minn.Stat.
- State v. Scott 373 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Scott 373 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Montjoy 366 N.W.2d 103 Minn. 1985
-
State v. Montjoy
366 N.W.2d 103
Minn. 1985
among other cases, permitting “stacking” of mandatory prison terms in eases where consecutive sentencing is otherwise proper — i.e., in cases such as this.
- Massey v. State 352 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- Massey v. State 352 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1984