Legal Opinion

State v. Litzinger

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided September 22, 1986No. C2-86-370PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WOZNIAK, Judge.

In this sentencing appeal, appellant Jeff Litzinger contends the durational departures were not justified because he did not commit a major economic offense. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Jeff Litzinger was charged in Polk County District Court with several counts of burglary, theft, criminal damage to property, and receiving stolen property, relating to eight separate incidents. He pleaded guilty to seven counts of burglary in the second degree and one charge of receiving stolen property. The incidents and sentences were as follows:

1. On May 6, 1985 appellant went into an…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. SchantzenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  2. State v. HernandezSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  3. State v. WinchellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  4. State v. Ming Sen ShiueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  5. State v. HodgesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. LitzingerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
  2. State v. OgrisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API