Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Olson, 325 N.W.2d 13.

199 citing documents.

State v. Rausch 799 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
the power to prescribe punishment for such acts rests with the legislature.”
State v. Robideau 796 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2011
State v. Robideau 796 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2011
State v. PTACEK 766 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. PTACEK 766 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Meredyk 754 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Meredyk 754 N.W.2d 596 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
While the imposition of a sentence within the prescribed limits is a judicial function, “in the absence of statutory authorization, a [district] court has no sentencing power.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Pugh 753 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Pugh 753 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Morin 736 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Morin 736 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Verdon 727 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Verdon 727 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Lushenko 714 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Lushenko 714 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
But it was within the court’s inherent authority and discretion to craft a bifurcated-trial procedure in the wake of Blakely before the legislature amended the guidelines, because sentencing “within the limits prescribed by the legislature is purely a judicial function.”
State v. Estrella 700 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Estrella 700 N.W.2d 496 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Bluhm 676 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 2004
State v. Bluhm 676 N.W.2d 649 Minn. 2004
Or the legislature may restrict the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing, such as by providing for mandatory sentences.”
State v. Streiff 673 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2004
State v. Streiff 673 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2004
Stay of Adjudication Streiff relies on two cases involving stays of adjudication to support her view that the district court had the authority to accept her plea to the lesser charges
Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
-18 (Minn.1982) (citing State v. Meyer, 228 Minn. 286 , ).
State v. Bluhm 663 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Bluhm 663 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. By 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
State v. B.Y. 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
State v. B.Y. 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
State v. By 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
Riley v. 1987 Station Wagon, Vin: 1JCMT7840HTI07485 650 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 2002
Riley v. 1987 Station Wagon, Vin: 1JCMT7840HTI07485 650 N.W.2d 441 Minn. 2002
State v. Haas, 280 Minn. 197, 200-01
State v. Meyer 646 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Meyer 646 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Colvin 645 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2002
State v. Colvin 645 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2002
(citing State v. Haas, 280 Minn. 197, 200-01 , ).
State v. Misquadace 644 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2002
State v. Misquadace 644 N.W.2d 65 Minn. 2002
Kaiser v. State 641 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2002
Johnson v. State 641 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2002
Johnson v. State 641 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2002
(stating that the imposition of a sentence within the limits prescribed by the legislature is purely a judicial function).
Kaiser v. State 641 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2002
State v. Richardson 633 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Richardson 633 N.W.2d 879 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
State v. Lindsey 632 N.W.2d 652 Minn. 2001
State v. Lattimer 624 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Lattimer 624 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
lding the decision to depart from the sentencing guidelines is within the district court’s discretion and will not be disturbed absent clear abuse of that discretion); (holding supreme court “will not interfere with a trial court’s discretion in sentencing unless the sentence is disproportionate to the offense”) (citation omitted); (holding district court judges, not the prosecution, pronounce sentences).
State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
However, “penal statutes must be construed strictly; any reasonable doubt must be interpreted in favor of the defendant.” -76 (Minn.App.1984) ( State v. Haas, 280 Minn. 197, 200 , ).
Baker v. Ploetz 616 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2000