Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Werneke Ex Rel. Werneke v. Lakeside Lawn & Landscape, Inc., 706 N.W.2d 40.

30 citing documents.

Christina Berrier v. Minnesota State Patrol 9 N.W.3d 368 Minn. 2024
508 P.3d 1148, 1152–53 (Ariz. App. 2022), vacated on other grounds, 536 P.3d 790 (Ariz. 2023) (stating that when an appellate court considers an issue “raised for the first time on appeal,” to “prevent unfair surprise, the court should afford the parties a full opportunity to brief and argue the issue, and when appropriate, allow participation by amicus curiae as well”); (stating that in rare cases we may consider issues for the first time on appeal when doing so will not work an unfair surprise
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
William Dumont White, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“For a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider both offende r- and offense-related factors.”); see also, e.g., State v. Allen , (M inn.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The prior-conviction exception is narrow but “the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that it is not strictly limited to whether a prior conviction existed.” Edwards, 12 d at 729 ( (holding that verifying a juven ile had been adjudicated delinquent does not require a jury), (holding that finding that a defendant was on probation at the time of the prior conviction does not requi re a jury)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
mpfley, d 412, 418 (Minn. 2017) (holding that a district court may issue a dispositional departure when it finds that the offense is significantly less serious than the typical case); (“For a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider both offender - and offense-related factors.”); see also State v. Allen , (“Upward di spositional departures under the guidelines may be based on either offender - or offense -related aggravating factors.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Walker , ( “For a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider both offender - and offense-related factors.”); see also, e.g. , State v. A llen, (“Upward dispositional departures under the guidelines may be based on either offender - or offense- related aggravating factors.”); (stating that “offense-related aggrav ating factors may be used to support not only such a dispositional departur
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[A] defendant’s particular unamenability to probation may be used to justify an upward dispositional departure.”
State v. Greenough 915 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Allen , , 45 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Meger 901 N.W.2d 418 Minn. 2017
Specifically, we held in State v. Allen that the recognition of the defendant’s probation status fell within the prior-conviction exception because it “flowed directly from the sentence for his prior conviction.” , 47-48 (Minn. 2005).
State v. Edwards 900 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-46 (Minn. 2005) (quoting United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 224 , 125 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Upward dispositional departures under the guidelines may be based on either offender - or offense -related aggravating factors.”
State of Minnesota v. Braden Jay Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[A]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” (emphasis omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Jon Brothers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Fox 868 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2015
“We do not ordinarily decide ‘issues that are raised for the first time on appeal, even constitutional questions of criminal procedure.’ ” ().
State of Minnesota v. Ge Her 862 N.W.2d 692 Minn. 2015
To be sure, we have applied the prior-conviction exception in two decisions, both of which predated Descamps, to cover facts beyond the mere “recognition of a prior conviction.” In the first case, State v. Allen, we held that a defendant’s probationary status fell within the prior-conviction exception because it “flowed directly from the sentence for [a] prior conviction.” -48 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Alan Truelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Ge Her 843 N.W.2d 590 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
as expanded the prior-conviction exception set forth in Apprendi to include a defendant’s custody status, such as probation status, concluding that “the fact a defendant is on probation at the time of the current offense arises from, and is so essentially analogous to, the fact of a prior conviction, that constitutional considerations do not require it to be determined by a jury.” -64 (Minn.App.2004) (holding that a custody-status point is analogous to a prior conviction), review denied (Minn. D
State v. Essex 838 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
-47 (Minn.2005) (citing Blakely, 542 U.S. at 303 , 124 S.Ct.
State v. Wiskow 774 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-48 (Minn.2005) (concluding that “the fact [that] a defendant is on probation at the time of the current offense arises from, and is so essentially analogous to, the fact of a prior conviction, that constitutional considerations do not require it to be determined by a jury”).
State v. Rourke 773 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 2009
See, -46 (Minn.2005); -72 (Minn.2005)
State v. Spence 768 N.W.2d 104 Minn. 2009
(declining to hear on appeal issues not raised below).
State v. Hughes 758 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 2008
(explaining that in rare cases this court will consider an issue for the first time on appeal when the interests of justice require and when doing so would not work an unfair surprise on a party).
State v. Green 747 N.W.2d 912 Minn. 2008
(considering defendant’s Blakely argument in interests of justice because such argument was unknown to defendant and contrary to established case law at time it would have had to be raised); Clifton, d at 800 (taking into account fairness of defendant’s trial aside from error); see also State
State v. Anderson 733 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 2007
We do not ordinarily decide “issues that are raised for the first time on appeal, even constitutional questions of criminal procedure.”
State v. McFee 721 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 2006
Subsequent to the filing of McFee's petition
State v. Dettman 719 N.W.2d 644 Minn. 2006
2348 ; see also Blakely, 542 U.S. at 304 , 124 S.Ct.
State v. Osborne 715 N.W.2d 436 Minn. 2006