Cited by

“[A] statute mitigating punishment is applied to acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached.”

The common-law amelioration doctrine “establishes a presumption in Minnesota that an amendment mitigating punishment applies to non-final cases.” (stating that the common-law amelioration doctrine applies to cases where no final judgment has been reached when the change in law takes effect).

The amelioration doctrine is grounded in the principle that if the legislature has amended a statute to mitigate criminal punishment, “the legislature has manifested its belief that the prior punishment is too severe and a lighter sentence is sufficient.”

at 488; ( “[A] statute mitigating punishment is applied to acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached.”).

The amelioration doctrine applies to a statute that mitigates the punishment for “acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached.”

State v. Kirby , State v. Coolidge

State v. Kirby , State v. Coolidge

(“[A] statute mitigating punishment is applied to acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached.”).

Vang relies on State v. Coolidge, which states that “a statute mitigating punishment is applied to acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached.” 1 But Coolidge does not apply if there is a contrary statement of intent from the legislature.

In State v. Coolidge, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that, under the common- law amelioration doctrine, “a statute mitigating punishment is applied to acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached.”

Westlund relies on State v. Coolidge, in which the supreme court held that “a statute mitigating punishment is applied to acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached.”

at she is entitled to be resentenced under the DSRA because her conviction was not yet final when the DSRA became effective.1 Kline relies on State v. Coolidge, in which the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that, under the common-law amelioration doctrine, “a statute mitigating punishment is applied to acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached.”

where the supreme court ruled that “a statute mitigati ng punishment is applied to acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached.”

-15 (Minn. 1979) (discussing the applicability of an amended statute “as long as no final judgment has been reached”).

in support of his argument.

in support of his argument.

Casey rel ies on the amelioration doctrine developed in State v. Coolidge , and he urges that “Minnesota follows the common-law rule that the legislature nonetheless intends for newly -enacted laws reducing the punishment for a criminal offense to apply to all cases that are not final when the law tak es effect[.]” We think Casey reads Coolidge too expansively.

In State v. Coolidge, the supreme court established an exception to this general rule, holding that “a statute m itigating punishment is applied to acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached.”

Appellant relies on the common law principle first announced in State v. Coolidge that “a statute mitigating punishment is applied to acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached.” (citing People v. Rossi, 555 P.2d 1313, 1314 (Cal.

Nonetheless, he argues that, , he is entitled to be resentenced because his conviction was not yet final when the DSRA rea ched final enactment on May 22, 2016.

Cardinal’s argument centers on State v. Coolidge , which establishes the amelioration doctrine as an exception to the general retroactivity rule: “[A] statute mitigating punishment is applied to acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached.” –15 (Minn. 1979).

However, appellant relies on the common-law principle first announced in State v. Coolidge that “a statute mitigating punishment is applied to acts committed before its effective date, as long as no final judgment has been reached.” (citing People v. Rossi, 555 P.2d 1313, 1314 (Cal.

In State v. Coolidge, the supreme court established an exception to this general rule, holding that “a statute mitigating punishment is applied to acts committed before its effective da te, as long as no final judgment has been reached.”

Conn neverthe less argues the sentencing provisions in the DSRA should be applied to reduce her sentence because of the common-law rule that “the legislature intends for newly-enacted laws reducing the punishment for a criminal offense to apply to all cases that are not final when the law takes effect,” –15 (Minn. 1979).

Robbins relies on an exception to this principle, arguing that “[n]otwithstanding the stated effective date, the Drug Sentencing Reform Act applies to pending cases under the common law amelioration doctrine.” 12 In Coolidge, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that “a statute mitigating punishment is applied to acts committed before its ef

appellant argues that he is entitled to resentencing in acco rdance with the mitigated p unishment provisions of the DSRA.

which appears to provide for an exception to the general rule stated above.

appellants argue in the alternative that because their convictions were not final on the effective date of the 2003 amendment, they should benefit from the mitigating effects of the amendment.

708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987)); -15 (Minn.1979) (applying a statutory amendment that mitigated punishment for criminal sexual conduct to acts committed by defendant before its effective date because no final judgment had been entered); -75 (Minn.1979) (vacating a sentence based on a criminal statute that was

See Holen, 250 Minn. at 136 , d at 287 ; -15 (Minn.1979) (a statute mitigating punishment applies to acts committed before its effective date, “as long as no final judgment has been reached.

In support of this argument

The district court denied relief and petitioner appealed, raising on appeal a (reducing the maximum term for a sodomy conviction from 30 to 20 years because the sodomy statute was impliedly repealed before final judgment had occurred and replaced by a statute permitting only a 20-year maximum term).