Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jonason, 292 N.W.2d 730.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“Judicial sentencing must strictly adhere to statutory authorization.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A district court’s role in sentencing is “that of the executor of the legislative power,” id., and “[j]udicial sentencing must strictly adhere to statutory authorization,”
Minn. 2021
See State v. Jonason , (upholding mandatory minimum sentences).
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan Ali 855 N.W.2d 235 Minn. 2014
Second, the separation of powers doctrine requires that “ ‘[¡judicial sentencing must strictly adhere to statutory authorization.’ ” State v. Mitchell, 577 * ().
State v. Mayl 836 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Mayl 836 N.W.2d 368 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Bluhm 663 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Bluhm 663 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
1977 Minn. Laws ch. 349, § 1; (recognizing the amendment to Minn.Stat.
State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
State v. Mitchell 577 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1998
For example, in State v. Jonason, when a district court stayed a mandatory sentence, this court reversed the district court decision, stating that “[j]udieial sentencing must strictly adhere to statutory authorization.”
Application of Wilson 509 N.W.2d 568 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Application of Wilson 509 N.W.2d 568 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(implied repealer by later enactment will be inferred only when two enactments are irreconcilable).
Caldwell v. City of Minneapolis 486 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Caldwell v. City of Minneapolis 486 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Larson 473 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Larson 473 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
This explicit exception to the general rule allowing stayed sentences “ ‘conclusively eliminate[s] the possibility of probation in cases coming under the minimum-sentence statute.’ ” (-26 (Minn.1978)).
State v. Lambert 388 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lambert 388 N.W.2d 34 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Feinstein 338 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1983
State v. Feinstein 338 N.W.2d 244 Minn. 1983
we ruled that as a result of the amendment trial courts were no longer free to stay execution of minimum terms mandated by section 609.11.
State v. Olson 325 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1982
State v. Olson 325 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 1982
§ 609.11, we held, that where the legislature had mandated a minimum sentence without stay of execution or imposition, the courts have no authority to stay a sentence and impose probation.
State v. Murto 322 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 1982
State v. Murto 322 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 1982
*726 On remand, the district court executed sentence, as requested, but refused to grant defendant credit against his prison term for time spent in jail while the case was on appeal: Holding that it would be “fundamentally unfair” to deny defendant this credit, we reverse the district court’s order and grant defendant credit for time spent in jail between December 16, 1981, and the day sentence was executed.
Watts v. State 305 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1981
Watts v. State 305 N.W.2d 860 Minn. 1981