DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lambert, 392 N.W.2d 242.

25 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    While the legislature has the power “to fi x the limits of punishment for criminal acts[,]” “the imposition of [a] sentence within the limits set by the legislature is purely a judicial function.”
  • State v. Eller 780 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Eller 780 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Kebaso 713 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Kebaso 713 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2006
    While we note that judges have broad discretion in sentencing on misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors and should consider all "facts bearing on the exercise of sentencing discretion,” -44 (Minn.1986), we leave resolution of this broader question for another day.
  • State v. Kier 678 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Kier 678 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    (stating gross misdemeanor sentences are not covered by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines).
  • State v. Gilbert 634 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Gilbert 634 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Koperski 611 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Koperski 611 N.W.2d 569 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    But, although this produces an anomalous result, “in the absence of statutory authorization, a trial court has no sentencing power.” (citation omitted), rev’d on other grounds
  • Perkins v. State 559 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1997
  • Perkins v. State 559 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1997
    Then, the court of appeals affirmed the Patterson court’s decision that a sentencing judge need not determine a defendant’s ability to pay the statutory minimum fine.
  • State v. Lambert 547 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Lambert 547 N.W.2d 446 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Henderson 527 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Henderson 527 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1995
    Standards for Criminal Justice 2d ed. § 18-2.3(c)(ii) (ABA 1980); c.f. Lydon v. City of North St.
  • State v. Whitledge 500 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Whitledge 500 N.W.2d 488 Minn. 1993
    State v. Gamelgard, 287 Minn. 74, 77-78
  • State v. Martinson 460 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Martinson 460 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Aleshire 451 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Aleshire 451 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • In Re Petition Regarding Assignment of Judges in the Ninth Judicial District 416 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1987
  • In Re Petition Regarding Assignment of Judges in the Ninth Judicial District 416 N.W.2d 450 Minn. 1987
    (constitution does not prevent judges from agreeing to common set of guidelines to achieve greater uniformity in misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor sentencing, so long as judges give defendants an opportunity to be heard, consider all the facts bearing on exercise of sentencing discretion given by legislatu