Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Womack, 319 N.W.2d 17.

58 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. DeAngelo Cortez Ransom Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. DeAngelo Cortez Ransom Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In arguing that the district court erred by considering uncharged conduct or dismissed charges in its sentencing decision
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In support of his argument, Heard quotes State v. 7 Womack, -20 (Minn. 1982), asserting that the district court was “‘not entitled to act as factfinder and determine whether’ Heard had engaged in conduct that was the subject of dismissed charges and charges for which he was acquitted.” In a nonprecedential but persuasive opinion, we rejected the appellant’s use of Womack
Michael Walton Hinton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Michael Walton Hinton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
For instance, Hinton cites State v. Womack for the proposition that a district court may only rely on a defendant’s conduct to durationally depart when the defendant “admits that the underlying conduct occurred.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-39 (Minn. 1984); -20 (Minn. 1982).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Jordan contends that, as a result of the alleged mistake, the district court sentenced hi m for conduct for which he was not convicted, contrary to State v. Womack , in wh ich the supreme court held that a 5 district court may not impose an aggravat ed sentence based on the alleged conduct associated with a charge that has been dismissed.
State v. Turrubiates 830 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Turrubiates 830 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
dismissed offenses.” (“When a defendant charged with two offenses pleads guilty to one of the offenses on condition that the other will be dismissed, the sentencing court may not, when the allegations of the dismissed offense are in dispute, rely upon those allegations as a ground for aggravating the *181 sentence.”).
State v. Leja 684 N.W.2d 442 Minn. 2004
State v. Wilkinson 539 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Wilkinson 539 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(sentencing court may look at conduct underlying offense to which defendant pleads guilty).
State v. Simon 520 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1994
State v. Simon 520 N.W.2d 393 Minn. 1994
would have been in order for the charged offense, then an aggravated sentence for the lesser offense of conviction might be appropriate); (trial court cannot disregard a jury’s verdict that defendant was guilty only of third-degree, not first-degree, murder by basing departure on its belief defendant was guilty of greater charge); -20 (Minn.1982) (trial court cannot deny defendant of guilty plea bargain by relying on underlying conduct supporting dismissed charge, conduct which defendant denies
State v. Arnold 514 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1994
State v. Arnold 514 N.W.2d 801 Minn. 1994
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, and had the effect of unfairly depriving defendant of the benefit of the plea bargain to which the state agreed.
State v. Bale 493 N.W.2d 123 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Bale 493 N.W.2d 123 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Appellant argues that the trial court relied on contested facts and uncharged offenses as a
State v. Pearson 479 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Pearson 479 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Larkins 479 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Larkins 479 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Lubitz 472 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1991
State v. Lubitz 472 N.W.2d 131 Minn. 1991
However, we recognized an exception to the general rule.
State v. Yanez 469 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Yanez 469 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Srey 400 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1987
State v. Srey 400 N.W.2d 722 Minn. 1987
It ruled (a) prevented the trial court from relying on the other forgeries in departing and (b) that the restitution order was proper.
State v. Srey 396 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Srey 396 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Alston 391 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Alston 391 N.W.2d 2 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
on the basis that there it was unfair to consider the entire course of conduct because the defendant had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge rather than the more serious charge.
State v. Yanez 381 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Yanez 381 N.W.2d 470 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Nesler 376 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Nesler 376 N.W.2d 745 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the case relied upon by appellant.
State v. Vikeras 378 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Vikeras 378 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Gould 366 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Gould 366 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Winchell 363 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 1985
State v. Winchell 363 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 1985
In this respect, the defendant’s is misplaced.
State v. Winchell 352 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Winchell 352 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
the Minnesota Supreme Court said: It is one thing for the sentencing court to look at the conduct underlying the offense to which the defendant pled guilty if the defendant admits that the underlying conduct occurred, but it is quite another thing when the defendant denies that such conduct occurred.
State v. Cermak 344 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1984
State v. Cermak 344 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1984
State v. Cox 343 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1984
State v. Cox 343 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 1984
State v. Chase 343 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Chase 343 N.W.2d 695 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
the court held that each case must be considered on its own.