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. Randolph, 316 N.W.2d 508.

83 citing documents.

  • State v. Schmidt 357 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Raddatz v. State 355 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • Raddatz v. State 355 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Milbrad 355 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Milbrad 355 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1984
    defendant had a right to refuse probation and insist on execution of his sentence.
  • State v. Sargent 355 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Petrin 354 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Burdick 355 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Petrin 354 N.W.2d 578 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    While a trial court technically may impose a probationary sentence for one crime and a concurrent executed sentence for another crime, such effort is wasted for two reasons: (1) appellant has the right to demand his probationary sentence be executed, and (2) there is no way to enforce defendant’s remaining probationary term once he is released from prison because he would have to be credited with the time already served on the executed sentence upon any sentence revocation.
  • State v. Burdick 355 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Sargent 355 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Appellant’s counsel requested at sentencing that appellant’s
  • State v. Horner 352 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Horner 352 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    a defendant may choose prison over probation only if probation is more onerous than prison and if it cannot be demonstrated that society’s interest suffers by vacating the probation sentence.
  • State v. Roesch 349 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Roesch 349 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Wesenberg 348 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Wesenberg 348 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    Minn. Sentencing Guidelines II F
  • State v. Ott 341 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Ott 341 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 1984
  • State v. Sutherlin 341 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
  • State v. Sutherlin 341 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
    analyzed the dichotomy between society’s interests in having defendant participate in rehabilitative programs such as alcohol treatment, make restitution, and be supervised for a period on probation, and defend.ant’s right to insist on execution of a prison sentence where terms of probation are more onerou
  • State v. Moore 340 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Moore 340 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1983
    3 establishes a defendant’s right to refuse probation and insist on execution of a stayed prison term.
  • State v. Dillener 336 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1983
  • State v. Dillener 336 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1983
    which is relied upon by defendant, simply suggested that a practical way of discouraging defendants from rejecting probation is for trial courts to limit probationary jail time to one-half of the presumptive sentence, thereby making probation more desirable.
  • State v. Olson 326 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Olson 326 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Wilwert 317 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Wilwert 317 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 1982
    where we held that a similarly situated defendant had a right to refuse probation, controls the disposition of the issue of whether defendant has a right to refuse probation and insist on execution of the stayed concurrent prison terms.
  • State v. Murto 316 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Murto 316 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1982
    While the appeal was pending, which controls.
  • State v. Smith 316 N.W.2d 562 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Smith 316 N.W.2d 562 Minn. 1982
    Subsequently, which controls.