§ 609.15

Adrian Dominic Riley v. State of Minnesota · 2025 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Roy · 2019 3 citations [Concurrence]

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Jason Ryan Williams · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali · 2014 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Vang · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Fardan · 2009 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Blanche · 2005 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Bluhm · 2004 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Carpenter v. State · 2004 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Warren · 1999 1 citation

. See Brom, 463 N.W.2d at 765; see also Minn. Stat. § 609.15, subd. 1 (1998).

State v. Willis · 1997 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Wilson · 1995 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Ford · 1995 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Roan · 1995 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Ouk · 1994 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Lee · 1992 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Braun · 1992 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Jobe · 1992 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Brom · 1990 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Mattson · 1985 1 citation

. A sentence consecutive to that of the Wisconsin court could have been imposed because defendant’s prior Wisconsin felony conviction arose out of a crime against a person and the sentence had not expired nor been discharged and the current Minnesota conviction was for a crime against a person. Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary II.F.01 (1984). The trial judge did not specify whether the Minnesota sentence should be consecutive to, or concurrent with, the Wisconsin sentence. However, failure to specify consecutive sentencing means that the sentence is concurrent. Minn. Stat. § 609.15, subd. 1 (1984).

State v. Cermak · 1984 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Higginbotham · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Cermak · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Running · 1983 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Hoskins v. State · 1983 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Herberg · 1982 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Flynn · 1981 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Moffitt v. State · 1981 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Milton · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Gatlin · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Olson · 1980 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Torisa Sulvoris Wallace · 2023 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Darrell Dewayne Dickerson v. State of Minnesota · 2017 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mahle · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Toni Ann Olmstead · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Erik Alan Vacek · 2014 2 citations

County sentence. Appellant argued that under Minn. Stat. § 609.15 (2010), the district

his Itasca County sentence necessitates that the sentences run concurrently under Minn. Stat. § 609.15, subd. 1. We disagree. The district court properly amended appellant’s

Pageau v. State · 2012 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Johnson v. State · 2012 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Senske · 2005 1 citation

Consecutive sentencing has a significant effect on the length of time served in prison. But the effect of consecutive sentencing on the statutory máximums at issue in Apprendi was at least as significant as the impact of consecutive sentencing on presumptive sentence durations. The legislature has removed the statutory maximum of 40 years that formerly limited the aggregate duration of consecutive sentences. 1992 Minn. Laws, ch. 571, art. 2, § 8 (amending Minn. Stat. § 609.15, subd. 2 (1990)). Even before that amendment, however, the supreme court had strictly construed the 40-year limit as counting only the time remaining on a prior conviction, not the total prison time imposed for that conviction. State v. Higginbotham, 348 N.W.2d 327, 330 (Minn.1984). With the removal of the aggregate 40-year limit, consecutive sentencing permits the aggregate sentence to greatly exceed the statutory maximum sentence on any one count, the problem at issue in Apprendi.

State v. Gilbert · 2001 9 citations

+ 9 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Rasinski · 1995 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Sundstrom · 1991 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Aleshire · 1990 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Jennings · 1989 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Bailey v. State · 1987 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Hulin · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Isaacson · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Kroonblawd · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Meech · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Dockin v. State · 1987 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Blegen · 1986 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Stafford · 1986 2 citations

Under Minn. Stat. § 609.15, subd. 2 the total term of imprisonment for a sentence other than a life term shall not exceed 40 years. The State concedes that Stafford’s sentence must therefoi’e be reduced from 495 to 480 months.

Under Minn. Stat. § 609.15, subd. 2 the total term of imprisonment for a sentence other than a life term shall not exceed 40 years. The State concedes that Stafford’s sentence must therefoi’e be reduced from 495 to 480 months.

In re the Grand Jury Investigation into the Death of Sash · 1986 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Stafford · 1985 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.