Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Randolph, 316 N.W.2d 508.

83 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ethan Joseph Metzer Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Ethan Joseph Metzer Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Second, Metzer argues that the district court erred when it imposed these probationary conditions because they departed “from the spirit of the Sentencing Guidelines.” To support his argument
State of Minnesota v. Ezra Atera Bogonko 6 N.W.3d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Ezra Atera Bogonko 6 N.W.3d 481 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Bogonko relies on two cases, to support his argument that the district courts erred by granting his demands to execute his sentences.
State of Minnesota v. Margaret Ann Frank Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Margaret Ann Frank Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-11 (Minn. 1982); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.135, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. Ct. App. 2022
But a defendant with a stayed sentence has the right to request execution of that sentence “when the conditions of probation make probation more onerous than prison.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In 1982, though, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a defendant with a stayed sentence has the right to demand execution of that sentence “if the conditions of probation make probation more onerous than prison.” State v. Randolph
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Joseph Jermaine Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Joseph Jermaine Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Erik Alan Vacek Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Erik Alan Vacek Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Pageau v. State 820 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. McKenzie 542 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1996
State v. McKenzie 542 N.W.2d 616 Minn. 1996
(defendants generally serve a minimum of two-thirds of total sentence in prison if no prison rules are violated, and a maximum of one-third on supervised release).
State v. Henderson 527 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1995
State v. Henderson 527 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1995
Standards for Criminal Justice 2d ed. § 18-2.3(c)(ii) (ABA 1980); c.f. Lydon v. City of North St.
State v. Rasinski 472 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1991
State v. Rasinski 472 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1991
This court first considered a defendant’s
State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
the Minnesota Supreme Court held: [I]f the conditions of probation make probation more onerous than prison and if it cannot be demonstrated that society’s interests suffer by vacating the probation sentence, the defendant should be allowed to refuse probation and demand execution of sentence.
State v. Parson 457 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Parson 457 N.W.2d 261 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
The supreme court established the right of a criminal defendant to demand execution of a sentence and refuse probation "if the conditions of probation make probation more onerous than prison * *
State v. Gilbertson 455 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 1990
State v. Gilbertson 455 N.W.2d 59 Minn. 1990
Because the imposition of a long probationary jail term “may, in effect, constitute a de facto departure from the presumptive sentence established by the Sentencing Guidelines,” that the total amount of probationary jail time a defendant may be required to serve generally cannot exceed two-thirds of the presumptive prison sentence duration under the Sentencing Guidelines.
State v. Samarzia 452 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Samarzia 452 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
ANALYSIS Appellant contends that he had an “absolute” and that the court erred in its replacement sentence.
State v. McElderry 422 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. McElderry 422 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Seifert v. Erickson 420 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Seifert v. Erickson 420 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(defendant earning good time serves two thirds of his sentence, then is released on supervised release for a period equal to his good time earned); pet.
State v. Sheppheard 407 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Sheppheard 407 N.W.2d 477 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bail v. State 391 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Bail v. State 391 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Barg 389 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Barg 389 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
At a subsequent probation revocation hearing where a probation violation was determined because of the subsequent assault conviction
State v. Martin 387 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Martin 387 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Stanger 370 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stanger 370 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the supreme court noted: “While a defendant may prefer to go to prison, society also has an interest that may well include a period of incarceration of the defendant followed by the threat of prison as a means of encouraging a defendant to accept treatment, make restitution, change his life style, or othe
State v. Nelson 364 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Nelson 364 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
A revocation hearing was held, on November 19, 1984, and Nelson’s
State v. Hill 363 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hill 363 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stacey 359 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Stacey 359 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
At sentencing, the trial court rejected a defense objection to the sentence and an implicit request, for execution of the sentence.
State v. Schmidt 357 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1984