Legal Opinion

State v. Holmes

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 27, 2006No. A04-1134PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MEYER, Justice.

In this appeal, we are asked to construe the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 169A.28, subd. 1 (2004), which provides for mandatory consecutive sentencing for a felony driving while impaired (DWI) conviction where a defendant’s sentence on a prior gross misdemeanor DWI offense is executed at the time of sentencing for the felony DWI. Respondent Frank E. Holmes was on probation for a prior gross misdemean- or DWI offense when he was convicted of felony DWI. The district court imposed consecutive sentences, did not downwardly amend Holmes’ criminal history score, and sentenced…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. State v. ZeimetSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
  3. State v. KlangSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  4. State v. KierCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2004
  5. State v. HolmesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. FranksCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
  2. State v. ColemanCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API