Legal Opinion
State v. Latimer
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided December 28, 1999No. C3-99-1236PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HALBROOKS, Judge.
Appellant Jaimie Latimer alleges the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing her to pay restitution of $12,383.05. She claims the total monetary losses of the murder victim’s parents were not directly caused by the conduct to which she pleaded guilty — accomplice after the fact to murder. We reverse and remand to the district court to determine which of the claimed restitution losses are a direct result of her actions as an accomplice after the fact.
FACTS
On April 21, 1998, Latimer pleaded guilty to Minn.Stat. § 609.495, subd. 3 (1996), aiding an offender…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. FaderSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- State v. OlsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- State v. TerpstraSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- State v. MullerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
- State v. EslerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. PalubickiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- Anderson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
- State v. MaxwellCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011
- State v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2011
- State v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.