Legal Opinion

State v. Litzinger

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 24, 1986No. C2-86-370PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

We granted the petition of Jeff Litzinger to review a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming upward durational departures from three presumptive concurrent sentences obtained using the so-called Hernandez method of computing his criminal history score. The Court of Appeals recognized a new ground for an upward dura-tional departure from a presumptive sentence — specifically, that the defendant was involved in a “major crime spree.” State v. Litzinger, 391 N.W.2d 82 (Minn.App.1986). Holding that the record does not justify the departures, we reduce the three sentences…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. State v. HernandezSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  2. State v. MooreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  3. State v. OttSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  4. State v. BrotenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  5. State v. EricksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. SotoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
  2. State v. O'BRIENCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
  3. State v. O'BRIENCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
  4. State v. OgrisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
  5. State v. PittelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API