Cited by

And in State v. McDonnell , we held that an effective -date provision did not indicate legislative 5 intent to apply an amendment retroactively because the effective-date provision stated that the amendment was “effective August 1, 2003, and applies to violations committed on or after that date.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

n.1 (Minn. App. 2004) (inferring findings from district court’s conclusions), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

review denied (Minn. Nov.

review denied (Minn. Nov.

10 In State v. McDonnell, the legislature provided that the amendment under review “is effective August 1, 2003, and applies to violations committed on or after that date.” (quoting 2003 Minn. Laws 1st Spec.

See, e.g., Basal, d at 336 (“Because the legi slature provided for a specific effective date for the 2007 amendment, the legislature did not intend for the amendment to apply to conduct occurring before the effective date.”); review denied (Minn. Nov.

In State v. McDonnell , we conclu ded that changes to an impaired - driving statute did not apply retroactively because the legislature indicated that the amendment would be “effective August 1, 2003, and appl[y] to violations committed on or after that date.” review denied (Minn. Nov.

In State v. McDonnell, we declined to apply a 2003 statutory amendm ent to conduct that occurred before August 1, 2003 , where the legislature expressly provided that the amendment “is effective August 1, 2003, and applies to violations committed on or after that date.” (quoting 2003 M inn.

In State v. McDonnell, we determined that Coolidge did not apply because the legislature clearly indicated its intent that a statutory amendment should not apply to crimes committed before the amendment’s effective date by providing that the amendment “is effective August 1, 2003, and applies to violations committed on or after that date.” (quoting 2003 Minn. Laws 1st Spec.

Further, appellant’s argument ignores this court’s review denied (Minn. Nov.

review denied (Minn. Nov.

In the act at issue in State v. McDonnell, the legislature stated that the subject amendment “‘is effective August 1, 2003, and applies to violations committed on 5 or after that date.’” (quoting 2003 Minn. Laws 1st Spec.

In State v. McDonnell, we held that a 2003 amendment did not apply to an offense that occurred before August 1, 2003, because the statute’s effective-date provision provided that the amendment “is effective August 1, 2003, and applies to violations committed on or after that date.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Nov.

(Minn. App. 1 A conviction becomes final when direct appeals are exhausted or the time for filing a direct appeal has expired.

21 , did not apply to an offense that occurred 6 before August 1, 2003, because the statute’s effective-date provision explicitly stated that the amendment “is effective Au gust 1, 2003, and applies to violations committed on or after that date.” –46 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Nov.

See Edstrom, d at 10 ; (holding that amendment to statute did not apply retroactively because legislature explicitly provided for effective date), review denied (Minn. Nov.