Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Clarkin, 817 N.W.2d 678.

46 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“We review the factual findings underlying jail - credit determinations for clear error, but we review questions of law de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The defendant bears “the burden of establishing that he is entitled to jail credit for any specific period of time.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(emphasizing “the importance of ensuring that the concurrent sentencing rules are appropriately applied to all sentences and preventing State delays .
Jonathan Nicholas Turner, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“The decision wh ether to award credit is a mixed question of fact and law; the court must determine the circumstances of the custody the defendant seeks credit for, and then apply the rules to those circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
4(B); (“A criminal defendant is entitled to jail credit for time spent in custody in connection with the offense or behavioral incident being sentenced.” (quotation omitted)).
Matthew Howard Isensee, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The defendant has the burden of establishing that he is entitled to jail credit for any specific period of time.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Guidelines 3.C.2.b.; -86 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A criminal defendant is entitled to jail credit for time spent in custody in connection with the offense or behavioral incident being sentenced.” State v. Clarkin , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A19-0270 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
5 v. Clarkin, , 687 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Clarkin , see also Johnson , d at 379 (“The decision to award custody credit is not discretionary with the district court.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Roy 928 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2019
State v. Roy 928 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2019
State v. Clarkin , , 687 (Minn. 2012).
State v. Roy 920 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Roy 920 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Clarkin , , 687 (Minn. 2012).
A17-1633 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N “The decision whether to award credit is a mixed question of fact and law.” (quotation omitted).
Jonathon Duane Taylor Hanson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Clarkin , d 678, 685-86 (Minn. 2012).
Michael John Husten, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Donquarius Davon Copeland, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Deciding “whether to award [jail] credit is a mixed question of fact and law; the court must determine the circumstances of the custody the defendant seeks credit for, and then apply the rules to those circumstances.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(quotation and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
D E C I S I O N “A cri minal defendant is entitled to jail credit for time spent in custody ‘in connection with the offense or behavioral incident being sentenced.’” (citing Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Senty-Haugen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Senty-Haugen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Simeon Leon Brooks v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Simeon Leon Brooks v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The decision whether to award credit is a mixed question of fact and law.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Charles Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Jacqueay Roberson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Jacqueay Roberson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The decision whether to award credit is a mixed question of fact and law.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Charles Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“A criminal defendant is entitled to jail credit for time spent in custody ‘in connection with the offense or behavior incident being sentenced.’” (quoting Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Lorraine Peltier Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Lorraine Peltier Minn. Ct. App. 2016
ense, but that credit only covers the time after the date when the state has completed its investigation “in a manner that does not suggest manipulation by the State, and the State has probable cause and sufficient evidence to prosecute its case against the defendant with a reasonable likelihood of actually convicting the defendant of the offense for which [s]he is charged.”
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brett Thomas Green v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
for time in custody after the date when “(1) the [s]tate has completed its investigation in a manner that does not suggest manipulation by the [s]tate, and (2) the [s]tate has probable cause and 8 sufficient evidence to prosecute its case against the defendant with a reasonable likelihood of actually convicting the defendant.”
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Ivan Torres-Lopez, a/k/a Jesus Ivan Lopez-Torres Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Ivan Torres-Lopez, a/k/a Jesus Ivan Lopez-Torres Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[The] decision whether to award [custody] credit is a mixed question of fact and law.” (quotation omitted).
James Darnell Posey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James Darnell Posey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mahle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mahle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The [district] court does not have discretion in awarding jail credit.”