Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Halvorson, 506 N.W.2d 331.
- Steven Todd Parker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. George Barnard Crooks Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. George Barnard Crooks
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that complainant’s testimony was sufficient alone, but consistent statements given by her fiancé, police, and doctor immediately after the crime further corroborated her statements).
- State v. Castillo-Alvarez 820 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-
State v. Castillo-Alvarez
820 N.W.2d 601
Minn. Ct. App. 2012
is not a departure and believes it would not unduly or unfairly exaggerate Mr. Castillo[-Alvarez]’s criminal conduct in this matter.” Castillo-Alvarez contends that consecutive sentencing is a departure that requires findings of “aggravating circumstances,”
- State v. Borg 780 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
State v. Borg
780 N.W.2d 8
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-36 (Minn.App.1993) (holding testimony of a 19-year-old victim of criminal sexual conduct was sufficient for the jury to believe her story over that of the defendant); (holding ten-year-old’s unequivocal testimony about her father touching her was sufficient to con
- State v. Daniels 765 N.W.2d 645 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-
State v. Daniels
765 N.W.2d 645
Minn. Ct. App. 2009
25, 1999); -40 (Minn.App.1993), for the proposition that, when there has been a durational departure as to a crime that was part of a single behavioral incident, consecutive sentencing of other crimes in that incident is also a departure and must be supported by “severe” aggravating circumstances.
- State v. Lindsey 654 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Lindsey 654 N.W.2d 718 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Hearn 647 N.W.2d 27 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-
State v. Hearn
647 N.W.2d 27
Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-40 (Minn.App.1993) (although patterned sex-offender statute supports durational departure, that status is alone insufficient to also support a departure by consecutive sentencing for kidnapping); see also Minn. Sent.
- State v. McCoy 631 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- State v. McCoy 631 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
- State v. Munger 597 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-
State v. Munger
597 N.W.2d 570
Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In a pro se supplemental brief, appellant argues that the imposition of a consecutive sentence unduly exaggerates the criminality of his conduct, , 340 n. 2 (Minn.App.1993) *574 ( for proposition that permissive consecutive sentence must not unfairly exaggerate criminality of defendant’s conduct).
- State v. Butterfield 555 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
- State v. Butterfield 555 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
- State v. Enger 539 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-
State v. Enger
539 N.W.2d 259
Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-36 (Minn.App.1993) (holding testimony of a 19-year-old victim of criminal sexual conduct was sufficient for the jury to believe her story over that of the defendant); (holding ten-year-old’s unequivocal testimony about her father touching her was sufficient to convict
- State v. Fields 529 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- State v. Fields 529 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- State v. Branson 529 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- State v. Branson 529 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1995