Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Spann v. State, 740 N.W.2d 570.

138 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Walter Wayne Urban Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Walter Wayne Urban Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bruce Everett Boyd Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bruce Everett Boyd Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christian Mccary Mayo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christian Mccary Mayo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Bruce Goggleye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Joseph Perry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “[a] criminal sentence that is contrary to the requirements of the applicable sentencing statute is unauthorized by law,” (quotation omitted), and “courts are empowered ‘at any time’ to correct sentences not authorized by law,” (quoting Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Edward Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-53 (Minn. 2012) (holding that the district court erred in convicting defendant “[e]ven though the court did not sentence” defendant on that conviction); (reviewing convictions for lesser-included offenses, for which defendant received no sentence).
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Nasson Chaney Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “[a] guilty verdict 19 alone is not a conviction.”
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A written judgment of conviction provides “conclusive evidence of whether an offense has been formally adjudicated.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Charles Huffman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[A]n appellant does not waive claims of multiple convictions or sentences by failing to raise the issue at the time of sentencing.”
Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This includes only a narrow class of sentencing challenges, such as, for example, when a defendant was unlawfully sentenced for multiple offenses arising out of a single behavioral incident in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.04 (2006), or when the district court unlawfully stays a sentence in the face of a statute that mandates an executed sentence, or when the district court unlawfully sentences the defendant based on an incorrect criminal history score, State v. Maurstad, 73
Washington v. State 845 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Washington v. State 845 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
9); (citing rule 27.03, subdivision 9, on appeal in support of reasoning that appellant did not waive challenge to sentence by not presenting it to district court); (citing rule 27.03, subdivision 9, on appeal from resentencing in support of reasoning tha
Greer v. State 836 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2013
Greer v. State 836 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2013
Fort v. State 829 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2013
Fort v. State 829 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2013
§ 590.01 (2012), we conduct “ ‘a broad review of both questions of law and fact.’ ” (); *82
State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
State v. Cox 820 N.W.2d 540 Minn. 2012
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
Bobo v. State 820 N.W.2d 511 Minn. 2012
State v. Fardan 773 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2009
Martin v. State 748 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2008
Martin v. State 748 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 2008
I. “On review of a postconviction court’s denial of relief, we ‘extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact.’ ” ().
Wayne v. State 747 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2008
Wayne v. State 747 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2008
“On review of a postconvietion court’s denial of relief, we ‘extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact.’ ” ().
Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
The postconviction court must hold an evidentiary hearing only if the petitioner alleges facts that, “if proved, would entitle [the] petitioner to the requested relief.” (internal quotations omitted).