Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Asfaha v. State, 665 N.W.2d 523.

52 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 523, 526 (Minn. 2003).
A24-0862 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Ryan Thomas Dorry, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In addition, as a matter of “fairness and equity,” a defendant is entitled to custody credit for time spent in a residential treatment facility if “the level of confinement and limitations imposed are the functional equivalent of those imposed at a jail, workhouse, or regional correctional facility.”
Matthew Howard Isensee, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
custody credit for time spent in jail or prison, the supreme court has held that “fairness and equity demand that [custody] credit be awarded” to defendants placed in residential treatment facilities when “the level of confinement and limitations imposed” at the facility “are the functional equivalent of those imposed at a jail, workhouse, or regional correctional facility.”
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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
g custody credit for time spent in jail or prison, our supreme court held that “fairness and equity demand that [custody] credit be awarded” to defendants placed in residential trea tment facilities when “the level of confinement and limitations imposed” at the f acility “are the functional equivalent of those imposed at a jail, workhouse, or regional correctional facility.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Roy 928 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2019
A17-1633 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A defendant is entitled to jail credit for time spent in a treatment facility if the placement’s “level of confinement and limitations imposed are the functional equivalent of a placement in a jail, workhouse, or regional correctional facility.” -24 (Minn. 2003).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The comments to the sentencing guidelines are “only advisory and not binding on the courts.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that comments to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines are “only advisory and not binding on the courts”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A defendant is entitled to custody credit for time spent in a treatment facility if the placement’s “level of confinement and limitations imposed are the functional equivalent of a placement in a jail, workhouse, or regional correctional facility.” - 24 (Minn. 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Dale Senty-Haugen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Dale Senty-Haugen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Johnson, d at 380; (crediting time spent in residential treatment facility as a condition of probation); (crediting time spent at intensive sex-offender treatment program ordered as a condition of probation).
Lawrence David Crosno v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lawrence David Crosno v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
e civil commitment process.” 4 In order to be entitled to jail credit for time spent in a residential treatment facility, appellant has the burden to establish that the residential treatment facility “imposes essentially the same limitations on a person’s freedom as a jail, workhouse, or regional correctional facility.”
Kevin Mathew Erickson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kevin Mathew Erickson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
While comments to the sentencing guidelines are not binding, we typically follow the commentary unless a comment contradicts the clear and unambiguous language of the guidelines.
Sadik Abdikadir Yusuf v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Sadik Abdikadir Yusuf v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
State v. Clarkin 817 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 2012
State v. Clarkin 817 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 2012
State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
(explaining that comments to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines are advisory rather than controlling).
State v. Williams 771 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 2009
State v. Williams 771 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 2009
State v. Johnson 744 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 2008
State v. Johnson 744 N.W.2d 376 Minn. 2008
State v. Maurstad 733 N.W.2d 141 Minn. 2007
State Ex Rel. Guth v. Fabian 716 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State Ex Rel. Guth v. Fabian 716 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Not applying the days that Guth actually served in prison against his term of imprisonment is also generally inconsistent with the caselaw on jail credit 2 or “custody credit.” See, (concluding that “fairness and equity demand that jail credit be awarded” when “the level of confinement and limitations imposed are the functional equivalent of those imposed at a jail, workhouse, or regional correctional facility” and awarding jail credit for time spent at a treatment facility to an
State v. Rouland 685 N.W.2d 706 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
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 r
State v. Garcia 683 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2004
State v. Garcia 683 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2004
Additionally, was decided while this case was pending, Garcia is entitled to receive jail credit for the time he served at residential treatment facilities if the conditions that were imposed at those facilities were the functional equivalent of those at a jail or workhouse.
State v. Hadgu 681 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hadgu 681 N.W.2d 30 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-28 (Minn.2003); Goar, d at 29 .
State v. Fields 679 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2004
State v. Fields 679 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 2004
Hutchinson v. State 679 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 2004
Hutchinson v. State 679 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 2004
State v. Serena 673 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Serena 673 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Garcia 670 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Distinguished State v. Garcia 670 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
review denied (Minn. 15 Aug.