Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wallace, 327 N.W.2d 85.

27 citing documents.

A24-1308 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“When a sentence is set aside as a result of an appeal by a defendant, the [district] court on resentencing may not impose a more severe penalty than the sentence which it previously imposed.”
A18-1655 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(explaining t hat the district court cannot impose a longer sentence on remand after a defendant’s successful appeal).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-68 (Minn. 1999); d 85, 88 (Minn. 1982) (prohibiting district court from imposing “a more severe penalty than the sentence which it previously imp osed”); State v. Prudhomme , (holding that after a sentence has been set aside, a district court must not resentence defendant to a longer sentence for the sam
Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
On resentencing, a district court “may not impose a more severe penalty than the sentence which it previously imposed.”
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But multiple sentences are permissible if there are multiple victims and the 16 sentences do not “unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. James David Gertz, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James David Gertz, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
On resentencing after a sentence has been set aside in a successful appeal, the district court “may not impose a more severe penalty than the sentence which it previously imposed.” State v. Prudhomme, 303 Minn. 376, 380
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Duane Gustafson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wallace v. State 820 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2012
Wallace v. State 820 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2012
(concluding that multiple sentences were permissible under the multiple-victims exception for Wallace’s convictions of attempted first-degree murder and criminal sexual conduct).
State v. Brown 433 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Brown 433 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
17, 1986) (two counts of second degree assault arose from a single incident); (attempted first degree murder and criminal sexual conduct; prior conviction for aggravated robbery); aff'd, (aggravated robbery and kidnapping; prior convictions for aggravated robbery).
Bailey v. State 414 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Bailey v. State 414 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Hatton 409 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1987
State v. Hatton 409 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 1987
State v. Rohda 358 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1984
State v. Pickett 358 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1984
State v. Rohda 358 N.W.2d 39 Minn. 1984
(“When a sentence is set aside as a result of an appeal by a defendant, the trial court on resentencing may not impose a more severe penalty than the sentence which it previously imposed”).
State v. Pickett 358 N.W.2d 38 Minn. 1984
("When a sentence is set aside as a result of an appeal by a defendant, the trial court on resentencing may not impose a more severe penalty than a sentence which it previously imposed”).
State v. Montjoy 354 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Montjoy 354 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Williams 337 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1983
State v. Williams 337 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1983