State v. Hockensmith
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
AMDAHL, Chief Justice.
This is a sentencing appeal in which we address the issue of whether the trial court could have reduced the defendant’s sentence at the probation revocation hearing. We granted the defendant’s petition for review not for the purpose of modifying defendant’s sentence but in order to prevent any problems that might otherwise be created by the court of appeals’ analysis of the issue.
Defendant sexually assaulted two women in separate incidents on the same night in June of 1983. He entered straight guilty pleas to two charges of criminal sexual conduct in the second…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Heitman v. Cronstroms Manufacturing, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- State Ex Rel. Lillemoe v. TahashSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
- State v. FieldsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- State v. HockensmithCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. Nelson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
- State v. StutelbergCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
- Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- State v. Nelson (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.