Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): fall within the range of 216 to 240 months. The 240-month sentence is the statutory maximum for first-degree aggravated robbery, and the 216-month sentence is equivalent to a double departure of the 108-month presumptive sentence for the kidnapping. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 1 . This statute went into effect August 1, 1998, before Neal was sentenced, but after the date of his offense. The previous dangerous-offender statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.152, subd. 2, was repealed August 1, 1998. See Act effective August 1, 1998, ch. 367, art. 6, § 7, 1998 Minn. Laws 731, 735. The district court erred in using the 1998 dangerous-offender statute because it went into effect after the date of Neal's offense, July 14, 1998. See State v. Murray, 495 N.W.2d 412, 413 (Minn. 1993) (<HOLDING>). However, the criteria for sentencing a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding minnesotas patterned sex offender senfence enhancement statute unconstitutional as applied to one defendant and noting our doubts as to whether the statute could ever be constitutionally applied (B) holding that when a statute is patterned after a similar provision in another states statute it is proper to resort to judicial constructions placed on the statute by the courts of the state whose statute provided the model in determining the proper construction   (C) holding that some of the sex offender conditions imposed on defendant as part of his sentence for possessing a firearm were unreasonable where defendants sole sex offense was over a decade old at the time of sentencing (D) holding that the defendant could not be sentenced under the patterned sex offender statute if his offense occurred before the statute became effective (E) holding that while a defendant is not entitled to be sentenced as a youthful offender on any new offense he or she may have committed the trial court cannot revoke a defendants youthful offender status on offenses for which that defendant has already been sentenced citation omitted
Output (English): holding that when a statute is patterned after a similar provision in another states statute it is proper to resort to judicial constructions placed on the statute by the courts of the state whose statute provided the model in determining the proper construction