Legal Opinion
State v. Grossman
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided April 17, 2001No. C8-00-459PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges the sentence imposed for his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the 40 year sentence based on Minn.Stat. § 609.108 (1998), Minnesota’s patterned sex-offender statute, violates due process following Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Because we conclude that the fact-finder must make findings, under a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, of factors that could result in a sentence greater than the statutory maximum, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
FACTS
On November…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Patterson v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. GouldSupreme Court of Kansas · 2001
- Poole v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2002
- State v. GrossmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2001
- State v. WilsonNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2001
- People v. MartinezColorado Court of Appeals · 2001
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.