State v. Raddatz

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Meredyk

    754 N.W.2d 596 (Minn. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that the district court erred by modifying a discretionary restitution order because the defendant agreed to a specific amount of restitution under the plea agreement

    This is in contrast to past cases in which the dispute went to a district court's later imposition of a restitution obligation when none initially existed or to a subsequent increase in the amount of the obligation. See, e.g., State v. Chapman, 362 N.W.2d 401, 404 (Minn.App. 1985) (challenge to imposition of a restitution amount significantly higher than that which was contemplated as part of the plea agreement); State v. Raddatz, 345 N.W.2d 798 (Minn.App. 1984) (challenge to imposition of a restitution obligation when, as part of a plea agreement, the parties agreed that defendant would be sentenced to executed prison time but there was no agreement as to probation or restitution). In short, this appeal presents an issue of first impression, with our research revealing no case law directly on point.

  2. State v. Harstad

    397 N.W.2d 419 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 1 times

    Until recently, Minnesota courts could not order restitution in addition to an executed prison term unless the defendant so agreed. State v. Wentz, 343 N.W.2d 667 (Minn. 1984); State v. Raddatz, 345 N.W.2d 798 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). Effective August 1, 1984, Minn.Stat. ยง 609.10(5) allows the courts to order restitution and/or a fine in addition to imprisonment for felonies:

  3. State v. Schmidt

    357 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)

    State v. Wentz, 343 N.W.2d 667 (Minn. 1984); State v. Raddatz, 345 N.W.2d 798 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). DECISION

  4. State v. Craig

    359 N.W.2d 70 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 2 times

    State v. Wentz, 343 N.W.2d 667, 667 (Minn. 1984); see State v. Raddatz, 345 N.W.2d 798 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). Since there is no indication of a restitution agreement in this case, the trial court improperly ordered restitution.

  5. State v. Booth

    357 N.W.2d 406 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)

    The restitution order must be vacated in light of State v. Wentz, 343 N.W.2d 667 (Minn. 1984); State v. Raddatz, 345 N.W.2d 798 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). Affirmed in part, vacated in part.

  6. State v. Sargent

    355 N.W.2d 179 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 5 times
    Stating court must make findings unless defendant agrees to reimburse public-defender fund

    State v. Wentz, 343 N.W.2d 667 (Minn. 1984); State v. Raddatz, 345 N.W.2d 798 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). In this case, appellant agreed to make restitution for three of the burglaries.

  7. State v. Burdick

    355 N.W.2d 176 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that sentencing court does not have authority to require chemical dependency program during incarceration

    Appellant contends that, if this court determines he is entitled to execution of his McLeod County sentence, then the restitution obligation under that sentence should not remain because appellant did not agree to restitution. State v. Raddatz, 345 N.W.2d 798, 799 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984); State v. Moore, 340 N.W.2d 671, 674 (Minn. 1983); State v. Wentz, 343 N.W.2d 667 (Minn. 1984).