Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite McCormack v. Lindberg, 363 N.W.2d 307.

40 citing documents.

A24-0862 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
An award or denial of custody credit is “governed by principles of fairness and equity, and a reviewing court can only ‘address this issue on a case-by-case basis.’” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
6 When analyzing jail-credit determinations, we must be cognizant of “the difficult subject of fairness and equity in the award of jail credit under the Sentencing Guidelines.” d 523, 528 (Minn. 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Armando Jesus Pedraza Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mahle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(emphasis added); –07 (Minn. App. 1987) (determining that when defendant was “subject to and under” felony sentence at the time she was sentenced for multiple misdemeanor offenses that could have been aggregated into fewer felony offenses, resulting in
State v. Clarkin 817 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 2012
(holding that defendant was entitled to the credit requested because the two sentences imposed were concurrent, and in the case of concurrent sentences the defendant should be “able to apply the jail time against both of them” ()).
State v. Clarkin 804 N.W.2d 148 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(2010) (establishing consecutive and concurrent sentencing principles); -10 (Minn.1985) (withholding of jail credit should not create a de facto departure that would result in unwarranted consecutive sentences).
State v. Johnson 744 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 2008
(-75 (Minn.1989)); -30 (Minn.1990) (also quoting Folley); -10 (Minn.1985).
State v. Razmyslowski 668 N.W.2d 681 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Awards of jail credit are governed by principles of fairness and equity, and a reviewing court can only “address this issue on a case-by-case basis.”
Asfaha v. State 665 N.W.2d 523 Minn. 2003
310 (Minn.1985) (stating “[w]e in no way intend that this decision be the final word on the difficult subject of fairness and equity in the award of jail credit under the Sentencing Guidelines.”).
State v. Bradley 629 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Perkins 554 N.W.2d 80 Minn. 1996
this court indicated that “it would be unfair to hold, in effect, that a defendant who is convicted of a gross misdemeanor may, by virtue of the technical nonapplicability of the Sentencing Guidelines [two gross misdemeanors], have to serve more total time in confinement in a case * * * than he would
State v. Theel 532 N.W.2d 265 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The issue of jail credit must be addressed on a “case-by-case basis.” State v. Dulski
State v. Sundstrom 474 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
(it is unfair not to apply guidelines’ presumption against consecutive sentencing to misdemeanor sentences).
State v. Weber 470 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 1991
State v. Bonafide 457 N.W.2d 211 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
More recently the supreme court has extended custodial credit to include time spent in a juvenile detention center awaiting certification for prosecution as an adult, and time against concurrent sentences accumulated during a holding period
State v. Goar 453 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 1990
State v. Folley 438 N.W.2d 372 Minn. 1989
State v. Brant 436 N.W.2d 468 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Hott 426 N.W.2d 423 Minn. 1988
Cf., -10 (Minn.1985) (holding that in a case dealing with jail credit against concurrent Sentencing Guidelines prison sentences where the State of Minne *425 sota is a party to both charges the sentencing court should (a) insure that the withholding of credit does not result in a de facto departure resulting in consecu
State v. Arden 424 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1988
we hold that the defendant is entitled to credit beginning with January 14, 1987, the date of the issuance of the complaint and arrest warrant.
State v. Akbar 419 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-10 (Minn.1985), the court held that a defendant jailed in one county on pending charges is incarcerated “partly ‘in connection with’” a charge in another county which has placed a hold on him, but only so long as the county with custody holds concurrently with the sentence of the demanding county.
State v. Parr 414 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Koski 408 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Kroonblawd 400 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Klindt 400 N.W.2d 127 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Dockin v. State 399 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State Ex Rel. Linehan v. Wood 397 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1986
The Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, reversed
State ex rel. Linehan v. Wood 394 N.W.2d 152 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The issue of jail credit must be addressed on a “case-by-case basis.”
State v. Carson 393 N.W.2d 382 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Anderson 388 N.W.2d 798 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
the supreme court also held the defendant was entitled to credit for jail time spent in another county.
State v. Bauman 388 N.W.2d 795 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
But the issue of jail credit must be addressed on a “case-by-case basis.”
State v. Blegen 387 N.W.2d 459 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Zaycheck 386 N.W.2d 294 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In re the Grand Jury Investigation into the Death of Sash 381 N.W.2d 521 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II
State v. Anderson 378 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
However, the supreme court held when a criminal defendant is sentenced to a concurrent sentence for an offense committed while on probation, he ordinarily is entitled to receive full credit — against both the current sentence and the sentence for which probation is revoked — for time spent in custody following his
State v. Willis 376 N.W.2d 427 Minn. 1985
State v. Moss 374 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
does not dictate a contrary result in this case.
State v. Marti 372 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
does not require appellant be given credit from the date of his arrest in North Dakota to the date of his parole.
State v. Best 370 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
appellant is entitled to five days jail credit for the time spent in confinement between his arrest on April 18, 1984, and the removal of bail as a condition of his release on April 23, 1984.
State v. Dulski 361 N.W.2d 381 Minn. 1985

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by