DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d 141.

237 citing documents.

  • State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Amundson 828 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    Those reasons included: (1) the supreme court’s -48 (Minn.2007), that a criminal defendant cannot waive or forfeit the right to challenge his sentence, particularly his criminal history score; (2) the importance of equity and fairness, which counterbalances any public interest in finality of a sentence that is unlawful or unauthorized; and (3) the “interests-of
  • State v. Kjeseth 828 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Kjeseth 828 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • Vazquez v. State 822 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • Vazquez v. State 822 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • Johnson v. State 820 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • Johnson v. State 820 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    Finally, “when the language of a criminal law is ambiguous, we construe it narrowly according to the rule of lenity.”
  • State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Beecroft 813 N.W.2d 814 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Hormann 805 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    D. Rule of Lenity “When the language of a criminal law is ambiguous, we construe it narrowly according to the rule of lenity.”
  • State v. Leathers 799 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Leathers 799 N.W.2d 606 Minn. 2011
    “[W]hen the language of a criminal law is ambiguous, we construe it narrowly according to the rule of lenity.” see also Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. 808, 812 , 91 S.Ct.
  • State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    “In construing provisions of the sentencing guidelines, the supreme court has treated the guidelines as if they are a collection of statutes and has applied the rules of statutory construction.” Johnson, d at 895 ().
  • State v. Ferguson 786 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Ferguson 786 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Carufel 783 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Holmes 778 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Holmes 778 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Pearson 775 N.W.2d 155 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Williams 771 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Williams 771 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Netland 762 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Williams 757 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Williams 757 N.W.2d 504 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Johnson 756 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Pugh 753 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Pugh 753 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    -47 (Minn.2007) (holding that defendant could not waive review of his criminal history score because sentence based on incorrect score is illegal sentence).
  • State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Outlaw 748 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    But *356 because a sentence based on an incorrect criminal history score is an illegal sentence, “a defendant may not waive review of his criminal history score.”