Legal Opinion

State v. McCoy

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided July 31, 2001No. C9-01-349PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

R.A. RANDALL, Judge.

Appellant challenges his sentence for second-degree criminal sexual conduct. Appellant argues that his sentence under Minnesota’s patterned sex offender statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.108 (1998), violated his due-process rights because it authorizes a sentence beyond the prescribed statutory maximum of 25 years for the charged offense based on findings made by the sentencing court rather than the jury. Appellant also argues that, even if the statute is not unconstitutional, the sentencing court erred in finding that he is a patterned sex offender because the court (a)…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. United States v. DoggettCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
  3. Richard Dale Talbott, Applicant v. State of IndianaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
  4. State v. BillstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
  5. United States v. Paul Thomas KinterCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2000

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. OsborneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
  2. State v. FeblesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
  3. State v. FreemanNebraska Supreme Court · 2004
  4. State v. HoustonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
  5. State v. HearnCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002

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

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

Powered by the Exa API