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. Moore, 340 N.W.2d 671.

68 citing documents.

  • A24-1308 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State v. Oberg 627 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Oberg 627 N.W.2d 721 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    State v. *724 Nace, (), review denied (Minn. Nov.
  • State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    cautioned against using Hernandez with consecutive sentences, appellant's sentences are to run concurrently.
  • State v. Soto 562 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Soto 562 N.W.2d 299 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc. 481 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Medibus-Helpmobile, Inc. 481 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    (eight forgeries by employee over four-year period were not a single behavioral incident); (swindle).
  • State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. O'HAGAN 474 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    However, “thefts from the same victim at different times have consistently been found to constitute separate offenses for sentencing purposes.” Chidester, d at 598 (defendant properly received 14 separate sentences for each check he forged and cashed over an eight-month period even though he victimized only one person, his mother); (eight counts of aggravated forgery based on separate acts occurring on eight different dates over a three-month period were not part of a single behavioral incident)
  • State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Distinguished State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
    . relied upon by appellant, are distinguishable.
  • State v. Glidden 455 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Glidden 455 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1990
    (aggregation used to give a first-time offender a large criminal history score and prison sentence) (aggregating multiple takings into a single charge rather than into multiple charges).
  • State v. O'BRIEN 429 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. O'BRIEN 429 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Hockensmith 417 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Hockensmith 417 N.W.2d 630 Minn. 1988
  • State v. Hockensmith 413 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Hockensmith 413 N.W.2d 277 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.F.; II.F.02 comment; , 673 n. 2 (Minn.1983).
  • State v. Litzinger 394 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1986
  • State v. Litzinger 394 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 1986
    Compare this case (where the maximum presumptive sentence is 45 months) (where, using the Hernandez method, we determined that the appropriate presumptive sentence for a woman who stole $40,000 from her employer *806 was 27 months), ($20,000 taken; maximum sentence of 32 months), (
  • Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • Walker v. State 394 N.W.2d 192 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Chidester 380 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Chidester 380 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    (eight counts of aggravated forgery based on separate acts occurring on eight different dates over a three-month period were not part of a single behavioral incident under Minn.Stat.
  • State v. Irwin 379 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Irwin 379 N.W.2d 110 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    is misplaced because the court there cautioned against using Hernandez with consecutive sentencing.
  • State v. Nelson 364 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Beamon v. State 364 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Beamon v. State 364 N.W.2d 858 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.F.
  • State v. Nelson 364 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Vaughn 361 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Vaughn 361 N.W.2d 54 Minn. 1985
  • State v. Eggert 358 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Eggert 358 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
    V Sentencing Appellant’s concurrent sentencing, resulting in a 70 month sentence for one of the convictions, using a criminal history score including two of the other convictions, is in accord with the Hernandez method, as extended to cases in which all offenses charged are against the same victim
  • State v. Sargent 355 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Burdick 355 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Burdick 355 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Sargent 355 N.W.2d 179 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Nace 354 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Nace 354 N.W.2d 87 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Thomas 352 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Horner 352 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Thomas 352 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. Horner 352 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
  • State v. McLemore 351 N.W.2d 927 Minn. 1984
  • State v. McLemore 351 N.W.2d 927 Minn. 1984