Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Losh, 721 N.W.2d 886.

77 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Gene Stensrud Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Anthony Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 98, 102 (Minn. App. 2005), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Thomas Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Eric James Reinbold Minn. Ct. App. 2025
26, 2009); (holding that a kidnapper’s leaving her victim in an unsafe place by a swamp constituted particular cruelty); see also Rourke, d at 923 (instructing the district court on remand to submit to the sentencing jury “one or more” special interrogatories to determine whether the state has pr
State of Minnesota v. Max Leo Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-94 (Minn. 2006) (concluding that a defendant benefits from a new caselaw rule if the defendant’s case is “pending on direct review”).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Alvin Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The district court “has broad discretion in determining if there is sufficient evidence to revoke probation and should be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of that discretion.” , 249-50 (Minn. 1980); (affirming the district court’s revocation decision for a single drug-use violation), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Rajiv Thomas Kjorsvig Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 98, 102 (Minn. App. 2005), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Mohamed Hassan Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.b(2), (10) (2020); (recognizing that a criminal-sexual-conduct offense involving multiple forms of penetration is “particularly cruel” and a sufficient reason to justify a durational 13 departure); (noting the aggravating factor of committing a crime as part of a group of three or more individuals); (noting the aggravating factor of the defendant’s use of death threats).
State of Minnesota v. Merwin Andrew Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Travis Franklin Juno Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating it is “the district court’s role” to hear testimony, “judge the credibility of the witnesses,” and weigh evidence, so we defer to the district court’s findings when based on the record), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Antone David Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Deontranelle Leslie Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Shaniese Latrice Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. David Edward Cardinale Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Shane Douglas Wellman Minn. Ct. App. 2019
aff’d on other grounds, 9 (affirming the district court’s decision to revoke probation, in part, because the defendant’s continued use and involvement with controlled substances posed a danger to the public interest, but the defendant’s drug use also was a contributing factor to defendant’s underlying conviction).
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
6 (holding that a departure will be affirmed when there is sufficient evidence to justify the departure even when the district court’s reasons are improper or inadequate).
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Longo 909 N.W.2d 599 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Losh , , 893-94 (Minn. 2006) (stating that a case is pending until the availability of direct appeal has been exhausted).
State of Minnesota v. Kevon Dante Vaughn Minn. Ct. App. 2018
2016 Minn. Laws ch. 160, § 18 (b), at 591 (stating that the DSRA is effective the day following final enactment); - 94 (Minn. 2006) (stating that a case is pending until the availability of direct appeal is exhausted).
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2016 Minn. Laws ch. 160, § 18 at 590 -91 (stating it is effective the day following final enactment); see also State v. Losh , -94 (Minn. 2006) (sta ting that a case is pending until the availability of direct appeal has been exhausted).
State of Minnesota v. Alfredo Darcourt Castellanos Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-94 1 This calculation is made based on Castellanos’s criminal history score , which is higher than six, plus an additional three months for his custody -status point.
State v. Meger 901 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 2017
State v. Meger 901 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 2017
-82 (Minn. 2008); -95 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Dean Blumke Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-94 (Minn. 2006); (noting that a case is final when “a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari elapsed or fina lly denied”).
State of Minnesota v. Gila Angela Robertson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mai Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Denise Ann Kline Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jason Michael Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tramaine Smith, a/k/a Darryl Green Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Lee Kivela-Sandnas Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. 4 Losh, -94 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Vincent Leith Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gerry Thomas Cardinal Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Abel Ricardo Mendoza, III Minn. Ct. App. 2017
1 A case is pending and not final “until such time as the availability of direct appeal has been exhausted, the time for a petition for certiorari has elapsed or a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court has been filed and finally denied.” State v. Losh , -94 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jessica Lynn Maack Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. John Jacob White Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chad Timothy Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Robert Nicholas Heinze Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Cole Michael Habinger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cole Michael Habinger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (affirming the revocation of appellant’s probation where “the district court found [her] continued use and involvement with controlled substances [to be] a danger to the public interest”), aff’d
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kamal Elyas Maqadin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kamal Elyas Maqadin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
court did not abuse its discretion by revoking defendant’s probation based on single incident of drug use where underlying offense “was the result of the abuse of drugs and alcohol and poor choices” and “allow[ing defendant] to again use or be involved with people who use chemicals in violation of the conditions of probation would not serve the public interest” (quotations omitted)), aff’d, –41 (Minn. App. 1987) (affirming revocation of probation where defendant was intoxicated at time of underl
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
of section 609.165 or 624.713, subdivision 1, clause (2), is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed by the defendant as part of the same conduct.” 3 Fleming’s (holding that a defendant may wait until probation is revoked before challenging his or her sentence); (holding that Minn. Stat. § 244.11, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Arnold Lee Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arnold Lee Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
To support his claim that we need not follow the state’s final decisions until a final decision by the United States Supreme Court is made
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Earl Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Earl Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ronnie Jo Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016