Cited by

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

199 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“[T]he legislature may restrict the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing, such as by providing for mandator y sentences .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Minn. Stat. § 609.095(a) (2022).
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Jagger Crawford Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Jagger Crawford Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“[T]he legislature may restrict the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing, such as by providing for mandatory sentences .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
11 Minnesota courts “do not have inherent authority to impose terms or conditions of sentences for criminal acts and must act within the limits of their statutory authority when imposing sentences.” (), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Minn. 2021
Indeed, we have flatly stated that “[t]he imposition of the sentence within the limits prescribed by the legislature is purely a judicial function.”
Minn. 2021
Although “the imposition of the sentence within the limits prescribed by the legislature is purely a judicial function,” the “power to define the conduct which constitutes a criminal offense and to fix the punishment for such conduct is vested in the legislature.” Id.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-18 (Minn. 1982) (noting that the legislature may restrict judicial discretion in sentencing).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
8(a) (2016); see State v. Olson , –19 (Minn. 1982).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
8(a) (2016); see also State v. Olson , –19 (Minn. 1982) (granting district courts authority to depart from mandatory minimum sentences but recogniz ing that legislature may further rest rict judicial discretion).
State v. Owens 930 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Owens 930 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The legislature has the “power t o define the conduct which cons titutes a criminal offense and to fix the punishment for such conduct.” -18 (Minn. 1982).
Bedeau v. Evans 926 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bedeau v. Evans 926 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Bedeau cites State v. Olson , , 18 (Minn. 1982), for the proposition that the prosecutor cannot exercise the judicial function.
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Stay 923 N.W.2d 355 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Ali , , 268-69 (Minn. 2014) ; State v. Olson , , 17-18 (Minn. 1982) ; *364 State v. Osterloh , , 580 (Minn. 1978).
Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018
Munt v. State 920 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 2018
State v. Olson , , 18 (Minn. 1982).
State v. Scovel 916 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2018
State v. Scovel 916 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2018
See State v. Zeimet , , 796 (Minn. 2005) ("[I]t is up to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission to determine how an offender's prior record will be used in assessing the number of criminal history points...."); see also State v. Olson , , 17-18 (Minn. 1982) ("The power to define the conduct which constitutes a criminal offense and to fix the punishment for such conduct is vested in the [L]egislature.").
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kaiser v. State , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
–18 (Minn. 1982); see also State v. Meyer, 228 Minn. 286, 293– 94
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 883 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. August Latimothy Fleming 883 N.W.2d 790 Minn. 2016
Minn. Const. art. 3, § 1; -18 (Minn. 1982); State v. Meyer, 228 Minn. 286, 293
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Armando Puente Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating in syllabus that “[i]n the absence of express authorization by the legislature, a district court is without authority to disregard a statutory mandatory-minimum sentence”); d 13, 18 (Minn. 1982) (stating that “the legislature may restrict the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing .
In the Matter of the Appeal by Tami L. Kreuzer of the Maltreatment Determination and Order to Forfeit … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Appeal by Tami L. Kreuzer of the Maltreatment Determination and Order to Forfeit … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[T]he rule of strict construction to be applied in interpreting penal statutes requires that all reasonable doubts concerning the legislative intent be resolved in favor of the defendants.”).
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 869 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Meyers 869 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2015
6 It is well-settled that the Legislature is vested with “[t]he power to define the conduct which constitutes a criminal offense and to fix the punishment for such conduct.” -18 (Minn. 1982).
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish 868 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish 868 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2015
1552 ; -18 (Minn.1982) ("The power to define the conduct which constitutes a criminal offense ...
State of Minnesota v. James Brandon Ponthieux Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Brandon Ponthieux Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ponthieux argues, “[t]his case is about the excessive incarceration of a man who is in need of correctional treatment.” But “[t]he power to define the conduct which constitutes a criminal offense and to fix the punishment for such conduct is vested in the legislature.” -18 (Minn. 1982).
Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jack Perry Frazier Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jack Perry Frazier Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-18 (Minn. 1982) (stating that power to define criminal conduct and fix punishment is vested in the legislature, while “imposition of the sentence within the limits prescribed by the legislature is purely a judicial function”).
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Westgard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Westgard Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that imposing a sentence within legislative limits is “purely a judicial function”).
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that sentencing “within the limits prescribed by the legislature is purely a judicial function”).
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Riggs 845 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Riggs 845 N.W.2d 236 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“ ‘[Cjourts have no inherent authority to impose terms or conditions of sentence for criminal acts.’ Rather, the power to prescribe punishment for criminal acts is vested with the legislature and the judiciary may only impose sentences within the statutory limits prescribed by the legislature.” (alteration in original) .().
Chambers v. State 831 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 2013
State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
State v. Rausch 799 N.W.2d 19 Minn. Ct. App. 2011