Cited by

The state argues second that the district court erred in its interpretation of the word “violation” in the 2 The supreme court has instructed that courts look to the “official judgment of conviction in the district court file as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” (quotations omitted).

Generally, appellate courts “look to the official judgment of conviction in the district court file as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” (quotations omitted).

Generally, appellate courts “look to the official judgment of conviction in the district court file as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” Spann v. State , (quotation omitted).

We “may look to the official judgment of conviction in the district court file as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” (quotation omitted).

Generally, appellate courts “look to the official judgment of conviction in the district court file as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” Spann v. State , (quotation omitted).

(explaining that appellate courts “ may also look to the official judgment of conviction in the district court file as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated” (quotation omitted)).

“An appellant does not waive claims of multiple convictions or sentences by failing to raise the issue at the time of sentencing.”

(“[The supreme court] ha[s] held that an appellant does not waive claims of multiple convictions or sentences by failing to raise the issue at the time of sentencing.”).

(stating that the official judgment of conviction may be used as “conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated).

Generally, appellate courts “look to the official judgment of conviction in the district court file as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” (quotation omitted).

But the warrant of commitment is “conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.”

3 Holloway acknowledges that he raises these issues for the first time on appeal, but “an appellant does not waive claims of multiple convictions or sentences by failing to raise the issue at the time of sentencing.”

2 Generally, appellate courts “look to the official judgment of conviction in the district court file as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” (quotations omitted).

“A guilty verdict alone is not a conviction.”

An appellate court may “look to the official judgment of conviction [on the warrant of commitment] in the district court file as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” (quotation omitted).

Cox II, d at 54 2–43 (citing Spann v. State , –74 (Minn. 2007)); see also Reese, d at 743 ( ).

The Minnesota Supreme Court addressed a similar issue regarding a first -

We may “look to the official judgment of conviction in the district court file as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” (quotation omitted).

-74 (Minn. 2007) (instructing appellate courts to look to the official judgment of conviction as conclusive evidence of “whether an offense 10 has been formally adjudicated”).

Courts may “look to the official judgment of conviction in the district court file as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” (quotation omitted).

But “an appellant does not waive claims of multiple convict ions or sentences by failing to raise the issue at the time of sentencing.”

We may “look to the official judgment of conviction in the district court file as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” Spann v. State , (quotations omitted).

We “look to the official judgment of conviction in the district court file as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” (quotations omitted).

An appellate court may “look to the official judgment of conviction in the district court file as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” (quotations omitted).

We “look to the official judgment of conviction in the district court file as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” Spann v. State , 73 (Minn. 2007) (quotations omitted).

See Spann v. State , (stating that this court may look to the official judgment of conviction in the district court’s file to determine whether an offense was adjudicated).

But “an appellant does not waive claims of multiple convictions or sentences by failing to raise the i ssue at the time of sentencing.” Spann v. State

The warrant of commitment is “conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that the “official judgment of conviction in the district court file” is “conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated” (quotation omitted)).

While the district court’s orally pronounced se ntence prevails over an inconsistent record due to clerical error, appellate courts look to the official judgment of conviction in the district court file “as conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” Spann v. State , (quotation omitted).