Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Houston, 702 N.W.2d 268.

53 citing documents.

Carlos Orlandos Smith, Minn. 2022
Blakely does not apply retroactively, and because it was decided many years after Smith’s conviction became final, Smith, it does not apply here.
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
A violation of that right—what we have described as a Blakely violation, –74 (Minn. 2005)—occurs when a court determines “any disputed fact essential to increase the ceiling of a potential sentence,” including factual findings related to offense dates, without the defendant 5 waiving the right to a jury’s determination of that issue.
State v. Meger 901 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 2017
State v. Meger 901 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 2017
We have stated that it is not enough that a holding “is logically an extension of some precedent, as that is true of virtually all recently announced rules.” *423
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Robert Politano Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Robert Politano Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jason Charles Cibulka v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jason Charles Cibulka v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n Miller is procedural); (holding that new rule in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), is procedural); -61 (Minn. 2006) (holding that new rule in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), is procedural), rev’d on other grounds, 552 U.S. 264, 128 S. Ct. 1029 (2008); (holding that new rule in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), is procedural).
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
Shawn Michael O'Connell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Shawn Michael O'Connell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
ecause its “new interpretation of the right to effective assistance of counsel does not qualify as a rule that goes to the heart of a fair proceeding”); (holding that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), did not announce a watershed rule), rev’d on other grounds, 552 U.S. 264, 128 S. Ct. 1029 (2008); (determining that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), was not a watershed rule because it did not “impact the accuracy of an underlying determination
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
Chambers v. State 831 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 2013
Chambers v. State 831 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 2013
Campos v. State 816 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 2012
Campos v. State 816 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 2012
Campos v. State 798 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Campos v. State 798 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(citing O’), for the proposition that the determination of whether a decision applies retroactively or non-retroactively is a legal question that is reviewed de novo.
Vickla v. State 778 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Vickla v. State 778 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
aff'd on other grounds, and arguing that Houston limits the application of Neal to kidnapping offenses.
Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“To be a wa *477 tershed rule, the new rule must be one without which ‘the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished.’ ” (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 313 , 109 S.Ct.
State v. Hughes 758 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2008
State v. Hughes 758 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2008
Perry v. State 753 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2008
Perry v. State 753 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 2008
State v. Hughes 742 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hughes 742 N.W.2d 460 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
is a purely legal issue which [we] review de novo.”
Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
Moreover, Blakely applies retroactively only to cases that were pending on direct review at the time it was decided in 2004, and Spann’s conviction was final in 1998, well before Blakely was decided.
Perry v. State 731 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2007
Perry v. State 731 N.W.2d 143 Minn. 2007
Spears v. State 725 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2006
Spears v. State 725 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2006
Hankerson v. State 723 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2006
Hankerson v. State 723 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2006
273 (Minn.2005) (holding that Blakely announced a new rule of federal constitutional law that "must be applied to all cases pending on direct review”).
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
State v. Losh 721 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 2006
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
Dukes v. State 718 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 2006
Dukes v. State 718 N.W.2d 920 Minn. 2006
Danforth v. State 718 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2006
Danforth v. State 718 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 2006
270 (Minn. 2005), this court applies the framework of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), when determining the extent of retroactive application of a decision of the United States Supreme Court announcing a rule of federal constitutional criminal procedure.
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006
738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)
McKenzie v. State 713 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 2006
McKenzie v. State 713 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 2006
State v. Henderson 706 N.W.2d 758 Minn. 2005