§ 609.152

Vickla v. State · 2011 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Neal v. State · 2003 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Smallwood · 1999 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Worthy · 1998 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Gorman · 1996 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Murphy · 1996 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Rachuy · 1993 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Wiskow · 2009 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Sanders · 2002 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Munger · 1999 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Hanson · 1998 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Kortkamp · 1997 3 citations

In this appeal from a conviction following a plea of guilty to one count of offering a forged check, appellant alleges that the trial court erred in failing to permit him to withdraw his plea. Appellant also challenges his sentence as a career offender pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.152, subd. 3, and alleges lack of notice of the state’s planned use of uncharged conduct to establish career offender status. Because we agree that (1) appellant was entitled to withdraw his plea and (2) appellant should have been given notice of the intended use of uncharged conduct, we reverse and remand.

In this appeal from a conviction following a plea of guilty to one count of offering a forged check, appellant alleges that the trial court erred in failing to permit him to withdraw his plea. Appellant also challenges his sentence as a career offender pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.152, subd. 3, and alleges lack of notice of the state’s planned use of uncharged conduct to establish career offender status. Because we agree that (1) appellant was entitled to withdraw his plea and (2) appellant should have been given notice of the intended use of uncharged conduct, we reverse and remand.

Kortkamp objected to the officer’s testimony on the basis that it (1) was hearsay, (2) lacked foundation, (3) was based on uncharged offenses, (4) was prejudicial, (5) was irrelevant, and (6) failed to give notice of the witness. The trial court overruled the objections and concluded that in order to show “a pattern of criminal conduct,” pursuant to Minn. Stat § 609.152, subd. 3, the state has a right to present evidence and testimony that may tend to show a pattern of criminal conduct that is not necessarily a felony or misdemeanor and did not lead to a conviction.

State v. Gorman · 1995 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Flemino · 1995 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Hendrickson · 1995 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Branson · 1995 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

St. Louis County Attorney's Office v. Twenty-Four Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Three & 01/100 Dollars ($24,643.01) in Various Denominations of U.S. Currency · 1994 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Hamacher · 1994 1 citation

Moreover, since Theisen, several statutory sentence enhancement factors have been created, which either explicitly or implicitly serve as guidelines aggravating factors. See, e.g. Minn. Stat. 609.152, subds. 2, 3 (1992) (authorizing “aggravated durational departure” for dangerous offenders and career offenders); cf. Minn. Stat. § 609.1352, subd. 4 *462 (1992) (sentence imposed under the patterned sex offender statute “is a departure from the sentencing guidelines”); see also State v. Rachuy, 502 N.W.2d 51, 52 (Minn.1992) (career offender statute is a legislatively created ground for departure).

State v. Halvorson · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Kimmons · 1993 17 citations

Appellant Glen Edward Kimmons was convicted by a jury of simple robbery in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.24 (1990). The trial court sentenced appellant to a double upward durational departure under Minn. Stat. § 609.152, subd. 2 (1990). Appellant claims the statute is unconstitutionally vague and unconstitutional as applied to him. We affirm.

Appellant Glen Edward Kimmons was convicted by a jury of simple robbery in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.24 (1990). The trial court sentenced appellant to a double upward durational departure under Minn. Stat. § 609.152, subd. 2 (1990). Appellant claims the statute is unconstitutionally vague and unconstitutional as applied to him. We affirm.

Appellant Glen Edward Kimmons was convicted by a jury of simple robbery in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.24 (1990). The trial court sentenced appellant to a double upward durational departure under Minn. Stat. § 609.152, subd. 2 (1990). Appellant claims the statute is unconstitutionally vague and unconstitutional as applied to him. We affirm.

+ 14 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Rachuy · 1993 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.