Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. LaTourelle, 343 N.W.2d 277.

226 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Michael Paul Kuklok Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 277, 284 (Minn. 1984) (stating that “the proper procedure to be followed by the trial court when the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act is for the court to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only” while retaining the guilty verdicts for the remaining charges without formal
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Lovestrand Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Paul Casey Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2023
When a “defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act,” district courts should “adjudicate 12 formally and impose sentence on one count only.”
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Sharice London Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Zakarie Farah Hassan Minn. Ct. App. 2023
When a defendant is “convicted on more than one charge for the same act,” district courts should “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”
State of Minnesota v. Deshawn Kejuan Woolridge Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Donald Knott Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Manuel Braulio Barrios Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Michael Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
When a criminal defendant is “convicted on more than one charge for the same act,” the proper procedure is for the district court to “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”
State of Minnesota v. Davonte Michael Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State v. LaTourelle , (emphasis added) .
State of Minnesota v. Marcelo Mendez Zepeta Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Trever Joseph Palodichuk Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When a criminal defendant is “convicted on more than one charge for the same act,” the proper procedure is for the district court to “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”
State of Minnesota v. Albert Lomami Okitokoko Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Frank Garrett Quentin Walter Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. John Steven Stenbeck Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating “the proper procedure to be followed by the trial court when the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act is for the court to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only,” retaining the guilty verdicts on remaining charges, but not formally adjudicatin
State of Minnesota v. Paul David Lightfoot, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Tony James Hewitt Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Tyreese Eugene Roberson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
: [T]he proper procedure to be followed by the [district] court when the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act is for the court to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Scott Bailey Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Mony Vetsouvanh Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When a defendant is convicted of more than one charge for the same act, a district court should “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”
State of Minnesota v. Tim Davin Dortch Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Andre Joseph Shafer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When a defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act, the district court should “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”
State of Minnesota v. Troy James Bonkowske Minn. Ct. App. 2021
( stating “the proper procedure to be followed by the trial court when the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act is for the court to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only,” retaining the guilty verdicts on the remaining charges, but not formally adjudi
State of Minnesota (A20-0305) (A20-0310) v. Dane Robert Mullen (A20-0305) (A20-0310) Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Thus, we reverse and remand to the district court to vacate Mullen’s convictions under subdivision 1( e)(ii), and subdivision 1( f)(i)
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Katherine James Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Ronnie Bila Shaka Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Upon 22 prosecution for a crime, the actor may be co nvicted of either the crime charged or an included offense, but not both.” Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2018); -84 (Minn. 1984) (concluding that “only one conviction can be sustained” because section 609.04 prohibits multiple convi ctions “for a single criminal act”).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Josphe Kriesel Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Keith Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When a defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act, the district court should “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”
State of Minnesota v. Corey Lemond Bingham Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The remaining conviction(s) should not be formally adjudicated at this time.”
State of Minnesota v. Korie Jermaine Wash Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Lavelle Darnell Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Additionally, appellate courts have interpreted the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 609.04 (2016), to prohibit district courts from entering multiple convictions for a single act.4 See -84 (Minn. 1984) (holding that “only one conviction can be sustained” because section 609.04 prohibits multiple convictions “for a single criminal act”); State v. Saxton , d 4 This section also prohibits convictions for both a greater and an included offen
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Joseph Melius Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Chinomso Emmanuel Onuoha Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Consequently, we reverse in part and remand with instructions that the distri ct court vacate one conviction and correct the warrant of commitment
State of Minnesota v. Travis Darnell Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The Minnesota Supreme Court has determined that “the proper procedure to be followed by the trial court when the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act is fo r the court to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”
State of Minnesota v. Chase Allen Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The remaining conviction(s) should not be formally adjudicated at this time .” State v. LaTourelle
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Loren Allen Maine Minn. Ct. App. 2020
When a defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act, the district court should “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”
State of Minnesota v. DaJuan Wendell Webster Rayford Minn. Ct. App. 2020
the [district] court [is] to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”
State of Minnesota v. Warren Skinaway Minn. Ct. App. 2020
If the adjudicated conviction is later vacated for a reason not relevant to t he remaining unadjudicated conviction(s), one of the remaining unadjudicated convictions can then be formally adjudicated and sentence imposed, with credit, of course, given for time already served on the vacated sentence.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Alan Galle Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Rogers Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Even though a defendant may be convicted of multiple counts arising from a single incident, the district court must “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.” State v. LaTourelle
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Bernard Nowels Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. LaTourelle , (“We hold that the proper proce dure to be followed by the trial court when the defendant is convicted on more than one ch arge for the same act is for the court to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”).
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Davis Fratzke Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[T]he proper procedure to be followed by the trial court when the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act is for the court to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Lee Bonacci-Koski Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. LaTourelle , (establishing the proper procedure for the district court to follow when a defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon William Bierbrauer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(stating that a court does not lose jurisdiction over lesser-included offenses to which the defendant is found guilty); (holding that the proper procedure when a defendant is convicted of more than one count for the same act is for the district court to adjudicate and impose a sentence on one count only).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Arthur Barron Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Roilan Garriga v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Sonny Syhavong v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Jon Urban Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The proper procedure in such cases is for the district court “to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.” State v. LaTourelle , .
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas James Bandur Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
see also Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2016) (“Upon prosecution for a crime, the actor may be convicted of either t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d o r a n included offense, but not both.”).