§ 609.229

Jackson v. State · 2019 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Campbell v. State · 2018 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. True Thao · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Kabba Kangbateh · 2015 4 citations

1 As of 1990, a “crime . . . in furtherance of criminal activity by an organized gang” was an aggravating factor that could support a departure. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.D.2.b.(7) (1990). This provision was deleted in 1991. See Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.D.2.b (1992). The Sentencing Commission clarified this change in the Guidelines by stating: “Gang related criminal activity is now a separate crime under Minn. Stat. § 609.229 and can no longer be used as a reason for departure from the presumptive sentence.” Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.D.205 (1992).

For persons sentenced under Minn. Stat. § 609.229, subd. 3(a) where there is a sentence for an offense committed for the benefit of a gang, . . . [t]he presumptive duration is determined by the duration contained in the Sentencing Guidelines Grid cell defined by the offender’s criminal history score and the severity level of the underlying crime with the highest severity level, or the mandatory minimum, whichever is greater, plus an additional 12 months or an additional 24 months if the victim of the crime was under the age of eighteen years. If the underlying crime is an attempt, the presumptive duration includes an additional 6 months or an additional 12 months if the victim of the crime was under the age of eighteen years.

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

LaMonte Rydell Martin v. State of Minnesota · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Garcia-Gutierrez · 2014 2 citations [Concurrence]

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

In re the Welfare of J.H. · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Martin v. State · 2013 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Jackson v. State · 2012 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Brown · 2012 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Campos v. State · 2012 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Caldwell · 2011 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Cox · 2011 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Vue · 2011 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Chavarria-Cruz · 2010 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. McDaniel · 2010 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Yang · 2009 3 citations

In this direct appeal, appellant argues that (1) there was no reasonable articula-ble suspicion to stop the vehicle in which he was a passenger; (2) Minn. Stat. § 609.229 (2004), the for-the-benefit-of-a-gang statute, is unconstitutional; (3) the district court improperly restricted cross-examination of informants and codefen-dants; (4) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress gang-related evidence and testimony; (5) the jury instructions were improper and constituted structural error; (6) prosecutorial error during closing argument denied him a fair trial and the cumulative effect of the district court’s errors requires a new trial; (7) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (8) his multiple consecutive sentences unfairly exaggerated the criminality of his convictions; and (9) the postconviction court erred when it denied his petition without a hearing. We affirm.

In this direct appeal, appellant argues that (1) there was no reasonable articula-ble suspicion to stop the vehicle in which he was a passenger; (2) Minn. Stat. § 609.229 (2004), the for-the-benefit-of-a-gang statute, is unconstitutional; (3) the district court improperly restricted cross-examination of informants and codefen-dants; (4) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress gang-related evidence and testimony; (5) the jury instructions were improper and constituted structural error; (6) prosecutorial error during closing argument denied him a fair trial and the cumulative effect of the district court’s errors requires a new trial; (7) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (8) his multiple consecutive sentences unfairly exaggerated the criminality of his convictions; and (9) the postconviction court erred when it denied his petition without a hearing. We affirm.

In this direct appeal, appellant argues that (1) there was no reasonable articula-ble suspicion to stop the vehicle in which he was a passenger; (2) Minn. Stat. § 609.229 (2004), the for-the-benefit-of-a-gang statute, is unconstitutional; (3) the district court improperly restricted cross-examination of informants and codefen-dants; (4) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress gang-related evidence and testimony; (5) the jury instructions were improper and constituted structural error; (6) prosecutorial error during closing argument denied him a fair trial and the cumulative effect of the district court’s errors requires a new trial; (7) there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (8) his multiple consecutive sentences unfairly exaggerated the criminality of his convictions; and (9) the postconviction court erred when it denied his petition without a hearing. We affirm.

State v. Vang · 2009 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Martin · 2009 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Jackson · 2009 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Cruz-Ramirez · 2009 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Burrell · 2009 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Jackson · 2009 11 citations

+ 11 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Burrell · 2008 10 citations

+ 10 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Mahkuk · 2007 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Jackson · 2006 8 citations

+ 8 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Pendleton · 2005 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Blanche · 2005 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Burrell · 2005 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Henderson v. State · 2004 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. DeShay · 2003 9 citations

+ 9 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Lopez-Rios · 2003 12 citations

+ 12 more citations in this opinion.

State v. By · 2003 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. B.Y. · 2003 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Frazier · 2002 16 citations

+ 16 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Thao · 2002 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Darris · 2002 1 citation

Johnson, Eley, Langer, appellant’s girlfriend, and appellant were all arrested and charged with various offenses stemming from the incident. Johnson had charges against him dismissed and was given immunity for his testimony. Eley, Langer, and appellant’s girlfriend entered pleas to aiding and abetting an unintentional murder, conspiracy to commit an assault in the first degree for the benefit of a gang, and aiding an offender, respectively, and each agreed to testify against appellant. Appellant was indicted in Polk County District Court on one count of first-degree premeditated murder in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.185(1) (2000), first-degree murder during the commission of an aggravated robbery in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.185(3), and two counts of first-degree murder committed for the benefit of a gang in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.229, subd. 2 (2000). The court dismissed Counts III and IV after the state conceded *236 that the Gangster Disciples did not meet the statutory definition of a gang.

State v. Cheng · 2001 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Henderson · 2001 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Shannon · 1998 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Branson · 1992 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Walker · 2018 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Taylor · 2018 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. James Lamar Davis · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Cedric Chappell, Jr. · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Pierre Scott Glass · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Daron A-Saad Johnson · 2015 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. K. R. · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Mang Yang · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In re the Welfare of J.H. · 2013 2 citations [Dissent]

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Caldwell · 2012 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Chavarria-Cruz · 2009 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Ferguson · 2007 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. DeShay · 2002 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Frazier · 2001 9 citations

+ 9 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Carillo · 2001 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Matelski · 2001 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Mireles · 2000 12 citations

+ 12 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Chuon · 1999 10 citations

+ 10 more citations in this opinion.

Caldwell v. Miles · 2019 8 citations

+ 8 more citations in this opinion.