Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sebasky, 547 N.W.2d 93.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In State v. Sebasky, we construed the phrase “resides intermittently” as including “frequent, but discontinuous, stays of two to six days at a time.” rev. denied (Minn. June 19, 1996).
-
Walter Johann Happel, petitioner, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
23, 2011); 101 (Minn. App. 1996) (noting that planning and manipulating are valid aggravating factor s in departure case), review denied (Minn. June 19, 1996); State v. Bates , (noting that planning and manipulation are aggravating factors in child sex-abuse cases), review denied (M
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In analyzing the “significant relationship” element of the first-degree criminal - sexual-conduct offense, this court previously concluded that “[t]o reside means to ‘live, dwell, abide, sojourn, stay, remain, lodge *** [or] have a settled abode for a time.’” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1308 (6th ed. 1990)), review denied (Minn. June 19, 1996).3 And we observed that a “dwelling is any ‘place of residence.’” Id.
- State of Minnesota v. Jacoby Kindred Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Jacoby Kindred
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
[or] have a settled abode for a time.’” review denied (Minn. June 19, 1996) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1308 (6th ed. 1990)).
- State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Maurion Jameal Travis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. David Eugene Nelson
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But “[w]hile courts usually should restrict sentences to double departures, when severe aggravating factors are present[,] the only limit is the maximum sentence provided by the legislature.” review denied (Minn. June 19, 1996); -99 (Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010) (greater- than-double departure justified where severe aggravating factors present); & n.1 (Minn. 1987) (prov
-
Maurion Jameal Travis v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“intermittently,” which includes “frequent, but discontinuous, stays.” (finding a significant relationship with the complainants who “slept, ate, occasionally left personal items there, and apparently never returned to their homes during” two- to six-day stays at appellant’s 5 apartment), review denied (Minn. June
- State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Michael Arthur Boelz
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
15(3), is unambiguous, concluding that two underaged boys’ “frequent, but discontinuous stays of two to six days at a time [at a defendant’s home] are specifically covered by the statute’s use of the term ‘intermittently.’” review denied (Minn. June 19, 1996).
- State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-
State v. Abrahamson
758 N.W.2d 332
Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(affirming departure that was based in part on the factors of showing pornography to child victims and the offender’s manipulation and planning), review denied (Minn. June 19,1996).
- State v. Adell 755 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-
State v. Adell
755 N.W.2d 767
Minn. Ct. App. 2008
29, 2008); review denied (Minn. June 19, 1996)
- Bjerke v. Johnson 727 N.W.2d 183 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
- State v. Koenig 649 N.W.2d 484 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-
State v. Koenig
649 N.W.2d 484
Minn. Ct. App. 2002
review denied (Minn. June 19, 1996).
- Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd. 625 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-
Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd.
625 N.W.2d 496
Minn. Ct. App. 2001
review denied (Minn. June 19, 1996).
- Weber v. Hvass 626 N.W.2d 426 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
-
Weber v. Hvass
626 N.W.2d 426
Minn. Ct. App. 2001
review denied (Minn. June 19, 1996).
- Cummings v. Koehnen 556 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
- Cummings v. Koehnen 556 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 1997