Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Reese, 446 N.W.2d 173.

22 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Matthew Sam Mitchell, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Matthew Sam Mitchell, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Here, Mitchell’s convictions stem from his possession of two different substances at the same time and place “with no discernible criminal objective other than personal use.” rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(explaining that Minn. Stat. § 609.035 “contemplates that a defendant will be punished for the most serious of the offenses arising out of a single behavioral incident” (quotation omitted)); State v. Papadakis , (“Possession of two controlled substances at the same tim e and place, for personal use, is a single behavioral incident.”); State v. Reese , (recognizing that “possession of two controlled substances at the same time and place, with no discernible criminal objective other than personal
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[P]ossession of two controlled substances at the same time and place, with no disce rnible criminal objective other than personal use, bars the imposition of separate senten ces.” State v. Reese , (citing State v. Zimmerman , ), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Craig Ryan Schwoboda Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Craig Ryan Schwoboda Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We therefore reverse in part and remand with instructions that the district court vacate one of appellant’s sentences.
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-15 (Minn. 1978); review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
16, 2001); (noting that possession of two controlled substances at the same time and place, for personal use, constitutes a single behavioral incident), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Papadakis 643 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Papadakis 643 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Marchbanks 632 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(possession of two controlled substances at the same time and place, for personal use, constitutes a single behavioral incident), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Lunsford 507 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Lunsford 507 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
In Re the Welfare of G.D. 473 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of G.D. 473 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Delay due to witness unavailability is permissible when the delay is “neither lengthy nor unfairly prejudicial.” (continuance did not violate defendant’s right to speedy trial); (delay due to witness unavailability was “legitimate” where not “extreme or prejudicial”), pet.
State v. McCloskey 451 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1990