Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In re Reinstatement of Cargill, 446 N.W.2d 383.

21 citing documents.

Minn. 2024
n.4 (Minn. 2023) (explaining that extrinsic canons are only applied to determine the meaning of ambiguous statutory language); n.3 ( Minn. 2019) (same); (explaining that when the language of a provision in the Guidelines is “clear and unambiguous,” the court will apply the plain language even if the comment to the Guidelines provision suggests a different outcome).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
a clear and unambiguous guideline provision.” (-86 (Minn. 1989)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
–86 (Minn. 1989); d 517, 521–22 (Minn. 1966).
State of Minnesota v. Tommy William Mix Minn. Ct. App. 2016
ude ‘personal injury,’ based on the substance of the crime and the underlying conduct.” Zais, d 10 at 862, aff’d, (-63 (Minn. 2001) (holding that obstruction of legal process is a crime against a person if the underlying conduct creates a special danger to human life); (noting that burglary is also a crime against a person if, “as committed,” it is against a person)).
State v. Zais 805 N.W.2d 32 Minn. 2011
Similarly, in State v. Notch, we considered the meaning of “crime against a person” under a sentencing guidelines provision allowing permissive consecutive sentencing when “the offender is convicted of multiple current felony convictions for crimes against different persons.” , 385 (Minn.1989).
State v. Zais 790 N.W.2d 853 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-63 (Minn.2001) (holding obstruction of legal process is crime against person if underlying conduct creates special danger to human life); (holding burglary is crime against person if, “as committed,” it is against person).
State v. Rannow 703 N.W.2d 575 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-63 (Minn.2001) (holding that consecutive sentence for obstructing legal process is crime against person if underlying conduct in committing crime posed special danger to human life); (holding that burglary may qualify as offense against person if “as committed” it is in fact a crime against a person).
Lewis v. State 697 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See Myers, d at 62-63 ; -64 .
State v. Rouland 685 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(stating the comments to the sentencing guidelines are “only advisory and not binding on the courts”); -86 (Minn.1989) (determining that although the comments to a guideline provision specifically state that credit for time served shall not apply to time spent in a residential treatment facility, the district court was not bound by the comment).
Asfaha v. State 665 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2003
While only advisory and not binding on the courts, the commentary to this section of the guidelines specifically notes that “[c]redit should not be extended for time spent in residential treatment facilities * * ⅝.” Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines III.C.04 comment; -86 (Minn.1989) (concluding that comments to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines were advisory rather than controlling).
State v. Bluhm 663 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(interpreting comment to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines as advisory and not controlling); (noting advisory comments to the Minnesota Rules of Court are not binding).
State v. Myers 627 N.W.2d 58 Minn. 2001
State v. Jackson 596 N.W.2d 262 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
A consecutive sentence in that situation is a departure: Id.; -86 (Minn.1989).
State v. Pero 590 N.W.2d 319 Minn. 1999
State v. Hanson 572 N.W.2d 307 Minn. 1997
In State v. Notch, we held that section II.F.2 “is clear and unambiguous and makes no exceptions to the ‘different persons’ requirement.” , 386 (1989).
State v. Johnson 514 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1994
State v. Halvorson 506 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
II.F.06 (guidelines intended to exclude consecutive sentencing when multiple offenses are committed against same victim during one behavioral incident)
State v. Fortman 474 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Bonafide 457 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
the court interpreted a comment to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines as advisory rather than controlling: “Even if the comment were otherwise, we would be reluctant to conclude that * * * because [the rule] itself is clear and unambiguous and makes no exceptions * * Id.
State v. Jones 451 N.W.2d 55 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
when the sentence for the most severe current conviction is executed according to the guidelines; Further, while the comments explain application of the guideline’s “different person” requirement to domestic and sexual abuse situations, see comment II.F.06, the supreme court recently noted that “[s]ection II.F.2 itself makes no exception to the [“different persons”] requirement.”