State v. Litzinger
Supreme Court of Minnesota
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
- State v. HernandezSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- State v. OttSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- State v. BrotenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- State v. EricksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. SotoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- State v. O'BRIENCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
- State v. O'BRIENCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
- State v. OgrisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- State v. PittelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994